Kyle Seeback

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. She certainly raised an interesting point.

Changing the system of how one is designated an NCR accused was certainly not discussed at committee. However, from listening to evidence from witnesses who were victims, I can say there certainly is a concern about how people are designated as NCR accused.

I am paraphrasing to an extent, but I think that many victims felt the NCR accused designation is applied too easily and too liberally. Of course, this legislation has nothing to do with that determination, but I can certainly understand and sympathize with victims who feel that way. To an extent, they feel there is no one who is therefore responsible, in some cases, for the murder of one's children.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased tonight to be speaking to Bill C-54.

As a member of the justice committee, I had the opportunity to review the legislation in detail. I had the benefit of hearing witnesses who came to the committee to testify with respect to this piece of legislation. We heard from people who were strongly in favour of the legislation, people who had been victimized by those who ultimately became NCR accused. They had certain things that they thought this legislation would do to help them. They had some other comments.

We also heard from some people who had concerns with respect to the legislation. I would respectfully submit that when we deconstructed most of the concerns that people raised at the committee, they were a result of either not understanding the legislation or not having read the legislation, or perhaps a combination of both, because most of the criticisms really did not withstand an examination by members of the committee.

I want to talk a bit about what this legislation would do. I will start off by going through four of the key changes.

In my view, one of the key changes in Bill C-54 starts off with making the safety of the public the paramount consideration when determining whether or not somebody who has been found not criminally responsible is going to be released into the public.

As I have often done when I get up and talk about these particular pieces of criminal justice legislation and many of the things that we have brought forward, I say that many of the things that we put forward actually just make common sense. When we talk to the average Canadian on the street, for example, or when I talk to people in my riding of Brampton West and explain some of these things and tell them this is the change that we are going to make with respect to this particular bill, often their response is, “Really? You have to make that change? Boy, it would just make common sense for that would be the law. Why would you have to make that change?”

Therefore, when we say that safety of the public is paramount, it means that when a court or a review board is going to make a disposition with respect to an NCR accused, it would take safety of the public as the paramount consideration. Not only would that make sense, but we would also be codifying some of the Supreme Court jurisprudence in that area. In R. v Conway, it was made very clear by the Supreme Court that safety of the public should be the paramount consideration, so when we amend section 672.54 of the Criminal Code, we would make it clear that:

When a court or Review Board makes a disposition...it shall, taking into account the safety of the public, which is the paramount consideration, the mental condition of the accused, the reintegration of the accused into society and the other needs of the accused,

—and here is the next change—

make one of the following dispositions that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances....

Again, that just would make sense. We would make a disposition that is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances.

The next major substantive change would be incorporating what we call a “high-risk” accused.

There are have been many who have come to this committee and said, “Well, this is going to stigmatize people. I mean, how dare you call somebody “high risk”? This is a person who has perhaps a significant mental disorder, and you're stigmatizing that person.”

I would say the exact opposite. In fact, we would not be stigmatizing people who have mental health issues, because what we are actually doing is saying that there are a select few who might be high risk, and we are destigmatizing everybody else, because people would then know they are not high risk.

I went back to this at committee over and over. When people were raising concerns about these issues, I would say, “Let us look at the section.”

Quite clearly, proposed section 672.64 would state, “On application made by the prosecutor before any disposition to discharge an accused absolutely, the court may, at the conclusion of a hearing, find the accused to be [a] high-risk...”

There are a number of processes taking place here.

The first is an application that may be brought by a crown attorney. It is not saying a crown attorney would bring this application for every person who is found to be NCR. It is quite the contrary. I know crown attorneys. My wife is a crown attorney. They are hard-working people. They are not looking for extra work. They would not try and dig up case files just because they want to make a person high risk. That would be reserved for cases where there is a significant concern.

Even if a crown prosecutor had that significant concern, it would not mean that person would be designated high risk because there is a two-fold test: first, the crown prosecutor has to bring the application; and, second, he or she has to convince a judge that the high-risk designation is necessary in the circumstances.

If I go back to the proposed section, it states:

...at the conclusion of a hearing, [the court may] find the accused to be a high-risk accused if the accused has been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for a serious personal injury offence...and...the court is satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused will use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person;

When we really take the time to listen to that section, it is saying that for a person to be designated high risk a court has to be satisfied that there is a substantial likelihood that the accused would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person. That to me is absolute common sense. Why would we consider an absolute discharge where a person would be released into the community, if he or she may be a high risk and there is a substantial likelihood that he or she would use violence that could endanger the life or safety of another person? That is the part of the test that has been changed. I am quite sure it would be used judiciously by our judges and it would not be used by crown attorneys all the time.

The second way that someone could be found high risk is if the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to another person. That is a proposed section that a number of people at committee have said is wrong and that, if it were a brutal offence, would mean that the person is high risk. That is not true. A number of witnesses made that statement at committee. I had to walk them through the proposed section. It does not just say “brutal”. We must look at the proposed section, which does not say that. It states:

[If] the court is of the opinion that the acts that constitute the offence were of such a brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person.

It is saying that there has to be some correlation. It is not just brutal; rather, it is brutal such that there is a risk of grave physical or psychological harm to another person. Therefore, if people want to suggest that we are saying brutal is high risk, they are not being truthful or they did not take the time to read the proposed section and understand what it says.

That is not enough. It does not just mean that there must be an indication of a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to another person because under subclause (2), “Factors to consider”, it goes on to state:

In deciding whether to find that the accused is a high-risk accused...

That could be under that first part of the test I talked about or the second part of the test. In either case, the courts would have to be satisfied that they have considered all relevant evidence included in the list. However, the phrase “all relevant evidence” does not mean that they are constrained by the factors in the list for a judge to consider. It is a non-exhaustive list.

Even if we accept the argument, “brutal”, we would then go down and look at what else has to be considered: the nature and the circumstances of the offence; any pattern of repetitive behaviour which the offence forms a part; the accused's current mental condition; and the opinions of experts who have examined the accused.

Even if someone tried to bring an application under the so-called “brutal nature” section, a court would have to look at all the evidence, which would include such things as the opinions of experts who have examined the accused.

The criticism that this might lead to a brutal crime, meaning the person is high risk, does not hold water. It is not a legitimate argument because a section in the statute says something very different.

Another issue that was raised at committee was that if a person was designated high risk, that person had to wait three years for his or her review and this was not a good thing. That is absolutely not true. It is not automatically three years. In certain circumstances, the review for a person who has been designated high risk can be moved to three years, but it is not automatic.

It is interesting, because the person who raised the matter of this being an automatic three years was Justice Richard Schneider, who came to the committee to provide us with his evidence on this and suggested that the three years was mandatory. I asked him if he could show me where it said that in the section. I understand there was constraints of time and we were talking, but he could not find it. However, when I look at the section, which is on page 8 of the statute around line 20, there are two ways in which this can be extended to three years.

First, it can be moved to 36 months after reviewing a disposition if the accused is represented by counsel and the accused and the Attorney General consent to the extension. It has to be with the consent of the accused. Because we are dealing an accused, and in this case in particular an NCR accused, it has to be represented by counsel and with consent of the Attorney General because we want to ensure we have real and legitimate consent to extend something to 36 months.

The other extension goes to the section again. I keep going back to this because we have to read the section before we decide to make the commentary. It says:

—at the conclusion of a hearing under subsection 672.47(4) or this section in respect of a highrisk accused, the Review Board may, after making a disposition, extend the time for holding a subsequent hearing under this section to a maximum of 36 months...

Here is the reason. If the review board is satisfied on the basis of any relevant information, including disposition information, in an assessment report made an offer under certain paragraphs, and this is key, “That the accused's condition is not likely to improve and that the detention remains necessary for the period of extension”. There is a burden of proof that has to be met in order to do that extension.

One of the things that was quite clear at committee, and this was virtually unanimous, was that review boards did good work. They work hard. They understand the law and we are putting that decision, the 36 months, back with the review board.

It is interesting because we did have a witness who came to the committee and who suggested that there was a problem with this 36 months review. When we look at the section, it is only if the accused's condition is not likely to improve and that detention remains necessary for the period of the extension.

Interestingly enough, when I had the opportunity to discuss that with Catherine Latimer from the John Howard Society, her response was, “Yes, I noticed that, but you will find that if you give very burdened organizations and review boards an option to extend the review periods, they always take it to the outer limit”.

Ms. Latimer was basically suggesting that review boards do not care what the test is. They do not care if the accused person's condition will or will not likely improve. The boards will do it at 36 months, because they do not want to work, because they have too much work. Ms. Latimer was one of the people who came to the committee and suggested that this bill should not pass. That was the argument. I vehemently disagree with that position.

I am going to talk briefly about the rights of victims, which is an important aspect of this legislation. I can say that I heard what I consider to be, in many circumstances, absolutely heartbreaking testimony from people who came to talk about family members who had been killed by an NCR accused person. They talked about their children being killed. We heard these things, and it was very difficult to listen to that kind of testimony.

I can tell you some of the things they were unhappy with that we wanted to fix. We cannot fix what happened. We all know that.

I cannot remember who told this story, but a person was walking in a mall and bumped into the NCR accused person who had committed the acts of violence against his or her family member. The person was in a panic. One of the revisions in this act would give the victim notice of the discharge of an NCR accused. The victim would receive notice when the NCR accused was going to receive an absolute discharge. That would be a huge step up.

The bill would make victim impact statements mandatory. If victims wanted to make statements, they would have to be considered before a disposition was made. Non-communication orders would also be mandatory. If victims did not want communication from an NCR accused, they would not have to have it. It is common sense.

I have a great example of the bipartisanship at the committee. An amendment was put forward by my colleagues in the NDP on letting victims know the intended place of residence of NCR accused people. That goes back to the story of someone bumping into the NCR accused in the mall. If victims know that they are being discharged and where they are being discharged to, the chance of having those unfortunate incidents would decrease.

Another point raised at committee was that with this legislation, NCR accused persons would be put in jail. That was put forward by Dr. J. Paul Fedoroff. I asked him where in the legislation it said that an NCR accused person would go to jail. He could not point it out. I then walked him through the section and talked about what would happen. When dealing with people deemed high risk, they would be put in treatment.

Going back to the terms of disposition, subsection 672.54(c) states that, “by order, direct that the accused be detained in custody”, and this is key, “in a hospital”. Somebody designated high risk would not go to jail. I do not know where that came from. It is not true. NCR accused persons would be put in a hospital for treatment.

When I pointed that out, the response was that before people were declared NCR, they would be put in jail, and that was the problem. The answer was that this is how the system currently exists. When people have committed serious crimes, are awaiting trial and do not get bail, they are put in jail. This legislation would not change that.

This is a piece of legislation that would be moderately used. It is a tool. I like to call it a double-check. When a review board was about to absolutely discharge an NCR accused person, there could be an application to the court to say that the person might be high risk and could reoffend and commit a violent act. The court could be asked to look at it to make sure that it was the right disposition. It would be a sensible, reasonable safety check. I hope that it has the support of all members of the House of Commons.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have a full 20 minutes to talk about this exceptional piece of legislation, but I will accept the six minutes we have left here today.

This is another great bill. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, is another great piece of legislation on an issue that concerns first nations Canadians. It is another great bill, much like the bill for safe drinking water we recently passed in the House. It goes back to things such as Yale, which was recently passed by the House, and the northern jobs and growth act. We have brought forward a suite of legislation designed to assist first nations in moving forward on many fronts.

When we talk about this particular piece of legislation, the first nations elections act, it is very important to note that this is, by definition, truly a grassroots bill. Why would I say that? It is because it was actually initiated and brought forward by two groups in this country: the AMC and the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs. They were looking at ways to reform the election process as it exists under the Indian Act.

What does that mean? They decided that they wanted to have a broad-based and significant consultation on how we could design some electoral reforms that would assist first nations in their governance. What did they do? I can tell the House that they had extensive consultations with first nations. For example, between January and March 2010, then-grand chief Ron Evans travelled to almost every first nation in Manitoba that holds elections under the Indian Act. At the time, there were 37. He held engagement sessions with these communities to find out the kinds of things they would like to see in this legislation.

A similar format was followed by the Atlantic Policy Congress. They had the same kinds of discussions in their own region. They went from community to community and spoke to chiefs. They asked what they would like to see to reform elections for first nations that have their elections governed by the Indian Act. That is the critical thing we have to look at when we look at this particular piece of legislation. This has been driven by first nations communities themselves. By far, the vast majority of the things in this piece of legislation are things brought forward and asked for by first nations communities.

When the first set of recommendations came forward, the AMC and the APC were asked to partner on a national engagement effort to present their recommendations to first nations across the country. Then-grand chief Ron Evans met with first nations organizations in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. He also wrote to every chief and council in Canada elected under the Indian Act. When we talk about the kind of input and consultation that took place with respect to this particular piece of legislation, we can see that this is an enormous amount of consultation.

The other thing that is important when we talk about this particular piece of legislation is that it is opt-in legislation. The difference between that and another piece of legislation is that first nations communities can choose if they want to opt in to this particular piece of legislation. When we combine the fact that it is opt-in legislation with the fact that there was extensive consultation with first nations communities, I can say that this is an exceptional piece of legislation that is going to do a lot of good for first nations communities.

Of course, one of the things they looked at in the legislation was moving the election from every two years to every four years. That just makes sense. Here in the House of Commons, when there is a majority government, there is an election around every four years. For first nations communities that have their elections operate under the Indian Act, it is every two years. We can think about the kinds of things that become difficult when we look at a two-year horizon versus a four-year horizon. It is much more difficult for them to make some of those longer-term plans that are so necessary for good governance, because they end up in a cycle of having another election so soon after the previous one and they need to start thinking about re-election.

This will be a significant step forward for first nations communities. It will also allow a new, modern and transparent electoral regime for first nations. Why is that important? One has to look at the things one needs, which are good governance and good elections. That will lead to stronger communities. First nations will have a better sense of how their communities will be governed and they will know when elections will take place. It will, in my view, increase accountability and transparency.

I wish I had more time and look forward to perhaps speaking to this legislation in the future.

[The Economy, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is not immune to global economic challenges from beyond our borders, especially from our most important trading partners like the United States and the European Union.

In economic action plan 2013, we have continued our commitment to grow the economy and create jobs. For example, the Canada jobs grant is going to train more Canadians for skilled jobs. We also have the largest federal investment ever in job creating, infrastructure and new tax relief.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance update the House on the government's actions to grow the economy and create great jobs for hard-working Canadians?

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that question shows the complete misunderstanding of this legislation. It is the same thing we faced at committee. People came to the committe“ and said this legislation would do that. It actually says they ”may” incorporate by reference provincial regulations. It does not say “we will”. It says “we could”. It is one of the options that is on the table. That is why I say this is enabling legislation. It would put the whole host or suite of options before the government when it chooses to regulate. No, it would not download to provincial responsibility. It would not cost the provinces money. We are not there.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has quite clearly pointed out the differences with what my colleague here was suggesting in this bill. We have to have the regulations. I keep going back to that, and I know I am, because we have to have the design of what the program would be before deciding what the funding envelope would have to be. That is exactly what we do.

I keep going back to this over and over again. I say it when we are going through this at committee. This is enabling legislation. It would enable us to go forward and put forward regulations to regulate waste water and drinking water. Again we would do that constructively with first nations, and once we had that, we would then be able to figure out what costs we needed to go forward with. Of course we would continue the investments we have made with respect to building infrastructure and building capacity. Then we would go forward with regulations.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see it as hypocritical at all because we are talking about an important issue with first nations drinking water. If we are going to do it we are going to do it right. We have to know what the regulations are before we say what it is going to cost. This is a very simple thing.

We are not coming up with, as she was talking about, an amorphous national strategy. What we are saying is we are going to develop specific regulations. Once we know what those specific regulations are and what standards are going to have to be applied, then we can determine what that is going to cost. We cannot put the cart before the horse, and we are not going to do that.

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill S-8 today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, so I am very familiar with this legislation. It is important legislation, necessary legislation, and legislation that I am proud to stand here and support.

One of the things that often gets lost in this debate, and I have heard over and over again at committee, is the misunderstanding of what this legislation actually is designed to do. We often hear from members on the opposite side of the House who say that the bill does not do this or does not do that.

It is not designed to be a panacea. It is not designed to solve every single problem. It is designed to solve one specific issue that was raised by the expert panel, and that is the need for regulations to set safe drinking water standards. The panel recommended other things as well, but that was one of the key issues that the experts said needed to be moved forward. That is why this legislation is so important. It would give the authority to enact regulations to ensure we have standards consistent to allow for safe drinking water. Safe drinking water is important, and we know that. It is a huge issue.

The issues that we have with first nations communities are varied and many. We have geographical challenges and different circumstances. They are complex. We have to find ways to filter water to remove contaminants, and we have to find ways to deal with waste water.

A lot of these issues are faced by non-aboriginal communities across Canada, and what is the number one tool that they will use to ensure that they have safe drinking water? It is a system of regulation that is designed to ensure that treated water is up to certain standards, and that is why this legislation is so important. Right now, there are no legally enforceable standards to regulate both water and waste water on most first nations communities. There are some self-governing first nations that do, and they have established and enforced water quality regimes, but they are the exception and not the rule. Bill S-8 would help to turn that exception into the rule.

People have come to the committee and said that the legislation could do this or that, and it might transfer some liability to first nations. I remind them that is because this is enabling legislation. The legislation does not say “it shall” do this or that. What it says is, here is a list of things that may end up being regulated. It would give the authority to engage in a comprehensive discussion with first nations communities with respect to regulations that need to be in place to suit each community. We always have to remember that this is enabling legislation.

We have a strategy on safe drinking water, and there are three pillars: continuing investments in water and waste water infrastructure, developing enforceable standards and protocols, and enhancing capacity building and operator training. We just heard the member for Winnipeg North ask a question about capacity. Of course, we have invested a significant amount in capacity through the circuit rider training program, which is a fantastic program that is making big differences.

When we talk about some of the issues surrounding capacity, we can say that seven years ago only a small minority of first nations had water systems that had trained and certified operators. There were very few. The progress is clear. By 2011, the national assessment found that operators with the appropriate level of certification managed 51% of first nations water systems and 42% of first nations waste water systems. Therefore, we have gone from a few to 51% and 42%. That is a significant increase.

A year later, annual performance inspections of the same systems had determined that these percentages had increased to 60.1% and 53.9%. Yes, it is not 100%, we want it to be at 100%, but we are getting there. Properly trained operators will ensure that the systems comply with regulations and consistently produce clean and reliable drinking water.

We are looking at all of these things. They do not operate in a vacuum; we have to have the regulations. That was raised by the expert panel. We have to have skilled operators. We are making those investments. We also have to have investments in the infrastructure that is necessary to produce the safe water and the drinking water and the waste water. That is why we have invested close to $3 billion in waste water and drinking water systems since 2006. Those investments are making a real difference.

However, not only are we making those investments, we are making the right investments. Why are we doing that? It is because we went forward with the most comprehensive review in the history of our country to look at water and waste water systems. It is a review that was not done by the previous government. We did that. We wanted to know which systems needed to have those investments. Systems are rated as high risk, medium risk and low risk. Therefore, we can prioritize where the investments need to be. Look at the high-risk ones. Let us work on those first. We look at this as a multi-faceted approach, one that is going to make a significant difference.

When we look at the regulations, we want time to do that. We are saying we are going to take time and develop them in consultation with first nations to make sure that we have the right regulations to ensure we have safe drinking water and properly treated waste water.

Some people have said “Wait a minute, where is the money? We cannot impose these regulations without money.” Well, I say, how does one build a house without knowing what the designs are? Someone does not just go up and say, “I want a house. Here's the money.” They have to actually design the house. That is what the regulations do. They are designing. They are saying these are the regulations that need to be in place. Once they know what those regulations are, then they can figure out what it is going to cost to implement those regulations. That is exactly the process we are following. We are going to develop the regulations, in consultation with first nations, and then we are going to figure out what, if any, funding arrangements need to change.

Seven years ago, the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations agreed to work together on drinking water. Today, the House has the opportunity to support this collaboration by endorsing Bill S-8. Surely, residents of first nations communities have waited long enough to have these regulations brought forward and put in place. We want to move forward with this and I am hoping that we are going to have the support of all parties in the House to make sure that we can move forward with regulations that will help bring safe drinking water and waste water to first nations communities.

[Criminal Code, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, like so many of my colleagues, I am happy to be able to speak today with respect to my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-489, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders).

I am proud to support this bill. It is another great piece of legislation that has been brought forward either by our government or members of our government who bring forward what I like to describe as, in many cases, common sense and practical solutions to some of the issues that are facing our criminal justice system today.

It reminds me of a couple of other pieces of legislation that we have brought forward, for example, when we brought forward the issue with victim surcharges. Part of the problem in that case was that judges were not imposing the surcharge, and when they did not, they were supposed to give written reasons. We found out that 90% of the time that surcharges were not imposed, the judges did not actually give written reasons. We made it mandatory that those victim surcharges would be put in place.

This bill would continue to support our agenda to make sure that our streets and communities are safe for all Canadians. It does it in a couple of meaningful ways, and I will go into that as I speak about it.

In a quick summary, the bill would ensure that sentencing courts and parole boards more regularly impose conditions when appropriate to prohibit specific types of contact between offenders and their victims. It proposes that such conditions be imposed to protect witnesses and other individuals who need similar protection.

Again, I say these kinds of things that are being brought forward just make sense. If we asked the average person if there should be conditions to prohibit types of conduct between offenders and victims, people would say, “Yes, that makes sense”.

I am not surprised that in many instances the opposition and opposition members would suggest this bill is not necessary, because the current law already provides that this could take place, but that is the problem. These conditions are not being put in place in many circumstances.

That is the same issue as the victim surcharge issue. For example, in this case, prohibition orders always include three mandatory conditions. These conditions are to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, of course the promise to appear when required, and to notify the court or probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, or any change of employment or occupation.

A sentencing court may also impose any of the optional conditions that are set out in subsection 732.1(3) of the Criminal Code, which includes drug and alcohol prohibitions, restrictions against travel, weapon prohibitions, requirements to support dependants and community service conditions.

The list of mandatory and optional conditions does not include conditions that restrict contact between offenders and victims. This is what I go back to when I say these reforms are such common sense things. One would think that would be at the top of the agenda, restricting contact between the perpetrator of a crime and the victim of a crime. Sentencing courts are also not required to provide reasons when they do not choose to do that. I would submit that makes absolutely no sense when we take a moment to think about it.

Lastly, subsection 732.1(g.1) provides a residual condition under which a court may impose reasonable conditions that are desirable for protecting society and for facilitating the offender's successful reintegration into the community. It is only pursuant to this residual provision that a sentencing court has the authority to impose a condition that would limit contact between the victim and the offender, or prevent the offender from moving across the street from the victim. It is a residual provision.

This is why a reform like this is so absolutely necessary. There are some examples in the case law where sentencing courts have imposed conditions restricting contact between offenders and their victims. For instance, in the case of R v. Horton, the offender, a G20 demonstrator, was made subject to a condition of non-contact with a named police officer who was a victim of the offender's actions.

That said, the appellate decision on the use of this provision underlined the problems with respect to its use in limiting contact between offenders and their victims. Specifically, the courts may refuse such conditions if by their nature they act against the successful reintegration of the offender. This is upside down. This is topsy-turvy. This is what we are talking about. We are putting the rights of the person who perpetrated a crime ahead of the rights of a victim. These imbalances need to be addressed in our justice system.

The Supreme Court of Canada stressed that in order for the probation order conditions to be lawful, they must not offend the objectives of protecting society or the successful reintegration of the offender. It is saying both are important and have to be given due consideration. Two Supreme Court of Canada cases, R. v. Proulx and R. v. Shoker, were very clear about this principle. There must be a nexus between the condition imposed, the offender's behaviour, the protection of society and the successful reintegration of the offender into society. We are trying to reinstitute that balance to make sure that the victim and protection of society is going to be back in that equation. However, as I said, the offender's interests supersedes the rights of the victim and the protection of society, and that is exactly what we are going to address with this legislation.

A good example of this can be found in the decision of R. v. Rowe, where the Ontario Court of Appeal found that a condition directing a repeat domestic violent offender to stay out of the province of Ontario for the duration of the probation order would be an obstacle to the successful reintegration of the offender, a repeat domestic violent offender. That kind of an order is an obstacle to reintegration. What about the obstacle to the victim? That is what we are trying to put back into focus. This is a problem that makes relying on the existing provision difficult and why we need this reform.

As I stated before, the courts are not required to provide reasons for not imposing such conditions, so we do not even know if that condition was considered by the judge or why the judge considered it and did not impose it. These are the kinds of problems that we have with the existing legislation. As a result of this, non-contact conditions simply fall through the cracks, and victims are asking why no one thought about them, why are they falling through the cracks? These are important reforms.

Bill C-489 proposes a real sound solution to the problem that we are talking about. I go back to this again. What I say often is that it is common sense. When explained to average people on the street that we are making this kind of a change, they are shocked that the law did not provide for this before. They cannot believe it. The justice committee is studying some of the changes to not criminally responsible, and we let them know what some of the changes are. People cannot believe that the changes that we are proposing are not already in existence now.

Bill C-489 proposes to amend the probation provisions to make it mandatory for the courts to impose non-contact conditions, unless there are exceptional circumstances not to do so or unless the victim or other individuals mentioned in the order consent. This is going to give more protection, more mental protection as well, to victims. Imagine that a perpetrator continues to be in contact with a victim of domestic violence. The victim will ask why some kind of prohibition order was not put in place.

Many of the concerns I have identified are applicable to other orders. This is why Bill C-489 proposes that the same types of conditions be mandatory for conditional sentence orders imposed by sentencing courts and for all conditional releases imposed by the Parole Board of Canada.

This bill would also require courts to consider imposing such conditions in all child sex offender peace bonds. This just makes sense. It is a reform that we absolutely need to move forward with.

Victims, their families and witnesses need the protection of the courts and parole authorities when an offender is released into the community. We have to get this done; it is going to provide more safety and ensure that witnesses and victims are protected.

This legislation is consistent with our government's commitment to putting victims' rights back on the agenda. That is why I am proud to support the bill.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, of course I thank the member for Mississauga South for the question. She is a hard-working member of Parliament.

I will say that many people are supportive of this legislation. I would be doing a disservice to them if I named one and did not name them all. Dozens of organizations support this bill. It received great support at committee. Quite frankly, it is another piece of legislation that is part of the great number of pieces of legislation that this government has brought forward to try to make our streets and communities safer. It is another important tool that we would use to accomplish that goal.

There is a great team on that side of the House, which I am part of, even though I am over here. We make a great team, much like the great team that defeated the parliamentary press gallery in hockey tonight, six to four.