Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you. Very briefly—and I appreciate that you haven't had time to digest the information that's included—the summary information at tab 4 with respect to Bill C-4 indicates that the current cost of the youth justice corrections system in Canada is $350 million. Those are not the costs that are associated with Bill C-4 in particular; we've included that for context for the committee.

Justice committee  I have just a few comments. There are a number of provisions included in this bill to basically strengthen the opportunity that restitution might be ordered for fraud cases. The first requirement is that the judge must consider restitution in such cases. In the general restitution provisions, there is no obligation on the court to consider restitution.

Justice committee  In general, a prohibition period can extend beyond another sentence because sometimes it's only a prohibition that's imposed. Where they exist in other circumstances, we have other provisions in the code that prohibit convicted child sex offenders from being around playgrounds, from being anywhere near children, all those sorts of things.

Justice committee  Well, bear in mind that the process requires that the application be brought back before the court and that both parties be heard. The judge would be looking at all those circumstances and would understand the grounds by which the crown is seeking this, and also the offender's reply to that, and would presumably come to the appropriate decision at the end on whether and how to change those conditions of the prohibition order.

Justice committee  Yes, we are.

Justice committee  I may have difficulty following your question, but I'll try to break it down.

Justice committee  That's correct.

Justice committee  When I looked at this amendment, I read it as applying only to subsection 380(2), which is a strictly indictable offence. Does that answer your concern?

Justice committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Mr. Woodworth has captured the rationale very well, so I'd only reiterate that: that this is not a gap. This was an intentional drafting of the MMP to apply only to subsection 380(1), because that offence has a monetary value attached to it and the others do not, so for practical reasons, it would be very difficult to determine the value of the public market manipulation.

Justice committee  If both amendments are passed, the bill would have to be reprinted and it would have to be sorted out. So this would be subsection (2.8), and it would follow in the proper spot.

Justice committee  If I could begin with your first question—with respect to the obligations that this proposes on the chief justice—I appreciate the intention behind this provision to give victims notice, but I do not think this information would be in the possession of the chief justice of the province where the offence took place.

Justice committee  What I'm saying is that currently those victims who register receive from the Correctional Service early on in the process some information about the management of the offender's sentence. Then if they are registered they get information about upcoming possible release provisions.

Justice committee  The numbers would be adjusted accordingly.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  In response to Mr. Comartin's question, yes, it will apply to all of those persons. The extension of the time period would apply to anybody who's currently serving a sentence, or who has committed an offence but hasn't yet been charged, or who has been charged and hasn't yet been tried.