Bill C-9 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment)

This enactment amends section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of that Act, a terrorism offence or a criminal organization offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more is not eligible for a conditional sentence.

Criminal Code

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a comment was made earlier by a member opposite about arson of a dwelling house being removed from Bill C-9. He should have been prepared when he came to the House. The truth is that it is taken out if someone is in their home when it is burnt down. However, if people are not in their homes when someone burns it down, the Liberal and NDP members think the arsonist should be able to serve his or her sentence in the comfort of his or her own living room. The member should have known that before coming into the House.

To answer the hon. member's question, the Minister of Justice has been very successful in striking an appropriate balance. We need to keep in mind that these people have already been convicted and certainly this law will--

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to try to correct the record, if I may. The member who just spoke referred to Bill C-9, a bill that just passed through this place. While it arguably may not be bang on relevant, it was mentioned by the member in his speech.

The member and the Minister of Justice have publicly stated that arson was removed from Bill C-9. Is the member aware that arson of a dwelling house still remains within Bill C-9? What those members are saying to Canadians, almost every day, is, I could be polite and say that it is wrong, but it is misleading to the point of being deceitful.

Is the member aware that arson of an inhabited dwelling house is a personal injury offence? It is quite unfair to Canadians for him and the justice minister to continue to repeat those remarks. It is misleading and most unfair.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, to finish up on that last point before I begin my remarks, there are multiple precedents in the Criminal Code for reverse onus provisions. Moreover, the burden is on the accused, an accused who has already been found guilty of the crime. That is key. The person has already been found guilty.

The bill is not stupid. It is the legal analysis of the hon. member opposite that more readily meets this description.

It is humorous to watch the member anticipate, almost with glee, the efforts of defence lawyers. He talks about the amount of time he spent in court, but who we really need to be listening to are the citizens of Canada who send us to this place, who sit and watch this on television and who may have spent no time in the courtroom, but who know, because common sense tells them, that this is the right thing to do for people who commit multiple, heinous crimes. We are talking about the worst of the worst here. We are talking about the Peter Whitmores of this world.

This is part of what sparked this type of courageous bill from the Minister of Justice. We are talking about locking up indeterminately, for at least seven years, the worst of the worst. Canadians coast to coast to coast know it is the right thing to do. It is only the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP members who do not know that it is the right thing to do.

It is my privilege today to speak in favour of Bill C-27, which proposes to strengthen and clarify certain provisions relating to dangerous and long term offenders as well as two types of peace bonds. This bill seeks to accomplish the following reforms.

First, it proposes a number of changes to the dangerous offender provisions of the Criminal Code. These changes are designed to address concerns that since 2003 there have been problems encountered in securing dangerous offender designations. These changes include a new reverse onus provision, a new provision that codifies the determination of fitness of sentence, a new declaration provision and some procedural changes regarding the psychiatric assessment.

Second, this bill will introduce a number of amendments to toughen the sections 810.1 and 810.2 peace bonds that allow police and crown prosecutors to impose extensive conditions on individuals in our communities who have a high risk of committing serious sexual or violent offences.

Certainly these reforms are significant in the overall context of offender management, which is the federal responsibility of Correctional Service Canada, or CSC, within the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. My speech today will focus on the Correctional Service, Canada's management of high risk offenders, and how the proposed provisions will assist these officials to monitor and supervise criminals who are at risk to commit violent and/or sexual offences.

The role of CSC is very important to highlight in the context of the amendments to the sentencing legislation. CSC is generally responsible for the management of all offenders who receive federal sentences of detention, that is, sentences of two years or more in a penitentiary.

Once an offender is sentenced, the role of CSC commences, in balancing assisting offenders in their rehabilitation with measures of control. This role continues throughout the duration of the sentence. Public safety is the paramount consideration.

Upon intake, each offender is assessed to determine appropriate interventions or programs. The assessment is multi-faceted and incorporates risk-based historical factors as well as the need for correctional intervention.

Risk-based historical factors are derived from tools such as criminal records and any sex offence history, as well as guidelines established by the Correctional Service to assess serious harm. The need for correctional intervention is determined through an analysis of factors such as employment, marital and family status, substance abuse, community functioning and the attitude of the offender.

The factors used to determine intervention are dynamic. As such, they require continuous monitoring to establish risks for reoffending posed by the offender at any given time. When all the factors are considered, offenders can be identified as high risk, the level of intervention required to achieve safe and timely reintegration into society can be determined, and a correctional plan can be established for the offender.

The correctional plan provides information about the management of an offender's sentence from beginning to end. It may include correctional interventions such as the referral to one of a range of accredited correctional programs, including the violence prevention program or the national substance abuse program, in order to meet the varying needs of offenders.

Other interventions may include increased levels of contact between an offender and a parole officer, psychological counselling, and community based substance abuse programs. These interventions are crucial in assisting the successful reintegration of offenders.

I have briefly outlined the role of the Correctional Service at intake. I will now speak about parole offenders generally and how this relates to the legislation before the House today.

Generally, an offender may or may not be granted parole eligibility by a judge in accordance with the Criminal Code. Offenders who are granted parole eligibility must serve one-third of their sentence before they are eligible to be released on parole. For certain violent offenders a judge may impose parole eligibility at one-half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less. For dangerous offenders, there is no parole eligibility for the first seven years and then every two years thereafter.

The offences that carry a parole eligibility requirement of one-half of the offender's sentence must be pursued by way of indictment and may not be a minimum punishment, and the offender must receive a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more. These offences include some of the most egregious crimes, such as sexual interference and sexual exploitation involving victims under 14 years of age.

The paroled release of an offender has a graduated approach rather than a cold release into the community. For instance, conditions may be recommended to the National Parole Board, such as imposing a curfew on the offender, to reduce the risk that the parolee will reoffend.

Offenders who have not been granted parole eligibility under the Criminal Code are eligible for statutory release. This is an inmate's legal entitlement, with exceptions for inmates serving life or indeterminate sentences to be released into the community after serving two-thirds of their sentences.

All federal offenders are to be reviewed for parole by the National Parole Board, if eligible, unless they waive this right. The board, in determining parole, is guided by a list of principles, including that the protection of society is the paramount consideration in all cases. The board must also consider certain criteria to grant parole. It must be of the opinion that an offender will not reoffend.

The National Parole Board must consider whether there is an undue risk to society before the expiration of the offender's sentence. It must also be satisfied that the release of an offender will contribute to the protection of society by facilitating the reintegration of the offender into society as a law-abiding citizen.

For dangerous offenders, the onus is on the offender to prove that he or she poses no risk to the public if parole is granted. Dangerous offenders are very rarely granted even limited parole. According to the National Parole Board, about 99% of all dangerous offender parole applications are rejected outright. This compares to, for example, parole applications for offenders convicted of first degree and second degree murder, whose parole applications are denied about 65% of the time.

As a result, the dangerous offender indeterminate sentence is often referred to as the toughest penalty in Canadian criminal law. Three main areas are considered during the board's review: an assessment of an offender's criminal and social history; the offender's institutional behaviour and results of interventions; and the release plan and community management strategy.

With respect to an offender's criminal and social history, many factors are assessed, such as the details of the offence, criminal history, substance abuse, and physical and mental health. Institutional behaviour and intervention assessment considers any evidence of a change in the offender as a result of the benefit of any treatment or program participation while incarcerated, as well as the offender's understanding of the current offence and previous criminal behaviour.

When assessing the release plan and community management strategy, National Parole Board members will consider the availability of programs or counselling, supervision controls, and whether special conditions are required to manage risk factors in the community.

Given all of these considerations and criteria, along with internal board policies, parole may not be granted to those offenders who are viewed as high risk and represent an undue risk to reoffend.

Canadians across the country have told us that they want to take action on crime. With this landmark legislation, we are delivering, but we cannot do the job alone. We need the support of the opposition MPs to help us pass this important legislation that we have introduced to tackle crime.

Despite grand overtures and rhetoric, the opposition has done little to actually get tough on crime in this Parliament. The opposition talked a lot about getting tough on crime during the election campaign, but this is really about what happens after the election. It is about how members stand in the House and represent their constituents and how they vote.

There is only one party that is sticking up for safe streets and safe communities and sticking up for the safety of our children and our seniors, and that is the Conservative Party of Canada and this government. I call upon the opposition to stop watering down crime legislation and do as it promised in the election campaign. Let us get on with the job of making our streets safe for all Canadians.

I would like to mention a few members in the House who are on board. They know the importance of getting tough on crime. First of all, they are led by the Minister of Justice, but we also have the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, the member for Wild Rose, the member for Cambridge, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, the member for Oxford, the member for Okanagan—Shuswap, and the list goes on with every single member on this side of the House. I see the member for Macleod looking at me. I see the member for Vegreville—Wainwright. They all want credit and they are all working extremely hard on this file to get tough on crime. I wish the members opposite would join us in that venture.

I thought I was going to have 10 minutes, but it turns out that I have 20 minutes so I want to talk to the House a little about how crime affects people in my riding of Palliser and across the entire province of Saskatchewan.

In case members do not know, Saskatchewan continues to be the crime capital of Canada under an NDP government. For the information of the House and the members opposite, I would like to let Canadians know what life is like under an NDP government.

Per capita, Saskatchewan's overall crime rate is higher than Ontario's. Saskatchewan is the murder capital of Canada. That is shocking. Saskatchewan has the highest rate of violent offences of any province in Canada. Saskatchewan continues to have the highest property crime rate in Canada. Crime rates for robbery in my home city of Regina are the third highest of any city in the country. Regina has the highest number of car thefts in Canada, again per capita.

All of us in this chamber and everyone watching at home recognize that this is a disgrace. The people of Palliser and the people of Saskatchewan have a right to feel safe in their homes and on their streets. Instead, every year they find that they live in the most dangerous province in Canada, thanks to years of provincial NDP and federal Liberal governments.

One would think that members of the opposition, when presented with a bill like Bill C-27, would support our government's tough new measures to crack down on dangerous offenders. Again, we are talking about the worst of the worst. We are talking about two dozen individuals a year. That is what we are talking about.

The members opposite and the members in the NDP refuse to support this bill, a bill that puts the onus on offenders who have already been convicted of three violent or sexual offences to justify why they should be released into a community. This is perfectly reasonable.

People at home recognize that it is perfectly reasonable. In fact, many of my constituents have contacted me wondering why we give people three chances. This is the Canadian way. We have a heart and we try to rehabilitate people, but there is a certain point at which we have to say enough is enough. Canadians are with us. To me and to the citizens of Palliser, the approach of this government makes a lot of sense.

That is not what we are hearing from the opposition benches today. I cannot believe that those members are not going to support this bill. Canada's new government is ready to take immediate action to get tough on dangerous offenders. I ask the members opposite, particularly the members of the NDP, to stand up today and join our efforts.

I ask that they do the right thing and support our efforts to make our neighbourhoods safe, but perhaps that is wishful thinking. After all, let us look at the record of the NDP when it comes to crime and criminal justice bills. The NDP joined with the Liberals to gut an important piece of our government's legislation, Bill C-9, which would have eliminated house arrest for arsonists, car thieves and criminals who break into the homes of our citizens.

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that if someone burns down a building, steals a car or breaks into someone's home, they should probably go to jail. The members in the opposition parties do not think so. They think these offenders should be eligible to serve their sentences perhaps in the comfort of their own living rooms. Canadians know that is wrong.

I know the NDP members like to advocate softer sentences for criminals and make excuses for why we should not get tough on crime but Canadians understand that gutting important crime bills and failing to stand behind legislation, like Bill C-27, is simply wrong.

When it comes to Bill C-27, the NDP justice critic did not do the right thing and voice his support for our bill. Instead, he criticized the Conservative government for bringing forward legislation to target dangerous offenders. He suggested that the bill, including its reverse onus provisions, violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, during the last election campaign the NDP said that it supported a reverse onus on bail for all gun related crimes. The NDP members cannot have it all ways. They cannot say one thing during an election campaign and then do a flip-flop once they come to this chamber. While I am on this topic, I should mention that the former Liberal justice minister also dismissed this bill outright. It is shameful.

It is clear that the NDP are content to say anything to get elected but when it comes to standing behind their words and doing the right thing they simply cannot be trusted. I think the facts speak for themselves. There is only one party in Canada today that is standing up for safer communities, safer neighbourhoods and safer streets and that is the Conservative Party of Canada and this new government.

I am so proud to support Bill C-27 on behalf of the citizens of Palliser. It is the right thing to do. It is the tough action on crime that Palliser residents have called for. What I hear all the time is that enough is enough, and this is the right thing to do.

I would like to take this opportunity during Remembrance Week and with Remembrance Day on Saturday to urge all Canadians to share the story of remembrance and to take the time to remember our veterans and those who currently serve in the Canadian Forces around the world, including our brave men and women in Afghanistan. The veterans and the members of the Canadian Forces are people to whom we owe everything that we enjoy today. We owe everything to those individuals. I urge members to take the time to remember, as I am sure all Canadians will.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a little rich. I can understand the hon. member's concern about his party having a record of being soft on crime. We only need to look at the evidence. The Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc are ganging up in committee to frustrate any attempt to get tough on crime. They gutted Bill C-9 on conditional sentencing. They opposed mandatory minimum sentences when they said during the election that they would be in favour of them. Now, on Bill C-27, which deals with the most violent and most serious offenders, people who have a third time serious offence, those members are not willing to get tough on these individuals. However, we are.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale.

We have heard all the rhetoric from the other side time and time again. I have seen this in committee. I have the privilege to serve on the justice committee. We have seen on Bill C-10, which would bring in mandatory minimum penalties for gun crimes, how all of the opposition, the NDP, the Liberals and Bloc, are united in opposing getting tough on crime, even though the NDP and the Liberals ran on a platform in the last election of getting tough on crime. Actually, they were promising to bring in measures that were even tougher than what our bill contains. For them to now say that our bill goes too far, is ridiculous.

We saw the same thing with Bill C-9, the bill that would have brought an end to conditional sentences for people who commit serious crimes, like arson, break and enter into a home and car theft. Again the opposition ganged together to gut that bill.

I think Canadians are saying enough is enough. Three of the four parties in the House were elected with a mandate to get tougher on crime. The NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives said that we would get tougher on crime.

A few months later, we brought forward Bill C-9 dealing with conditional sentences, Bill C-10 dealing with mandatory minimum sentences, and legislation dealing with raising the age of protection. When our party is putting forward the legislative initiatives to protect Canadians, we see the opposition parties dragging their feet, standing in the way and flip-flopping, when they should be cooperating with us so we can make Canada safer.

I reject the premise of some of the remarks today that crime is not getting worse. The crime statistics that were just released yesterday say that violent crime is up, gun crime is up and gang-related crime is up. I do not say that to be an alarmist. It is just that we on this side of the House have decided that we will face the facts that Canadians want us to take crime seriously, that crime is serious and that effective measures need to be put in place.

I want to speak today to Bill C-27, a bill involving dangerous offenders, a bill that addresses the worst of the worst, as it were, when it comes to criminal offenders, those who prey on innocent Canadians, those who have been shown to be perhaps repeat offenders and those who commit the most serious crimes. This is not about any low level crime. It is the most serious crimes and the most serious offenders.

The bill responds to our government's goal of tackling crime by strengthening measures to protect families from offenders who are of a high risk to offend sexually or violently in our communities. Most of these amendments are the result of changes that the provinces, the territories and other stakeholders, including victim's groups, have supported. That is important to note.

The bill amends the dangerous offender and long term offender provisions, as well as sections 810.1 and 810.2 of the Criminal Code dealing with peace bonds.

The dangerous and long term offender amendments in the bill seek to strengthen and enhance those provisions. One of the amendments deals with applications for a dangerous offender hearing under part XXIV the Criminal Code. It requires a prosecutor to advise a court, as soon as possible after a finding of guilt, which is important to note, and before the sentence is imposed, whether it intends on proceeding with an application.

However, for this provision to apply, the prosecutor must be of the opinion that the predicate, or current offence, is a serious personal injury offence as defined in the code, and the offender was convicted at least twice previously of a designated offence as newly defined in section 752, and was sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment for these prior convictions. This person has to have committed a serious crime for which he or she were tried and sentenced twice before for this particular provision to come into play. When that is the case, the crown prosecutor must indicate whether he or she will be pursuing the designation of dangerous offender.

Another amendment ensures that a court cannot refuse to order an assessment where it is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offender might be found to be a dangerous or long term offender. This was a technical amendment recommended by provincial and territorial ministers of justice.

The bill also imposes a reverse onus on the offender in some situations where a crown prosecutor has sought a dangerous offender designation. If a prosecutor is able to satisfy a court that an individual was convicted of a third primary designated serious sexual or violent offence, one of the most serious offences under the Criminal Code, the crown is deemed to have met its case that the individual is a dangerous offender and the individual must then prove on a balance of probabilities that he or she does not meet those criteria. We are shifting the onus, after a third offence, on to the offenders to show why they should not be designated as dangerous offenders. This brings some balance and fairness into our system.

However, the bill also clarifies that even when the conditions to make a dangerous offender designation have been met, the court must consider whether a lesser sentence, including a long term offender designation, would be adequate and neither the prosecutor nor the offender has the onus of proof in that matter.

These amendments clearly strengthen the dangerous and long term offender provisions and will ensure that prosecutors can more readily seek a designation for violent and/or sexual criminals who will in turn receive some of the toughest sanctions in the Criminal Code.

I also want to touch on peace bonds. Bill C-27 seeks to amend the provisions related to section 810.1 peace bonds for the prevention of sexual offences against children. The member for Wild Rose spoke passionately about his desire to protect children from sexual offenders and this bill deals with just that. I commend him and all members who have taken this up and are concerned about protecting children. Also, section 810.2 peace bonds target more serious violent and/or sexual offences.

These types of peace bonds are preventive in nature. They are instruments that are available to law enforcement officials to protect the public. It is not necessary for an offender to have committed a criminal offence for a judge to make such an order. These orders require individuals to agree to specific conditions to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. They aim to protect individuals and the general public from persons who are a danger of committing sexual offences against children or are likely to commit a serious personal injury offence. These situations we know all too often do exist.

Once granted, failure or refusal to enter into peace bonds could result in an immediate term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. They can be renewed and breaches of any of the conditions in the peace bond would be considered a criminal offence and can be prosecuted in any provincial or territorial court with criminal jurisdiction, providing up to a two year prison sentence.

Specifically on a peace bond, where there is fear of a sexual offence, the current section of the code allows anyone who fears, on reasonable grounds, that another person will commit an offence under specific provisions of the code against a person under the age of 14 years, may lay an information before a provincial court judge for the purpose of having the defendant enter into a peace bond. The specific offences covered include sexual assaults, sexual assaults with a weapon, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touch and child pornography offences.

Obviously, those are very serious offences and this bill seeks to protect young children from them. The peace bond can set out certain areas, for example, where an offender is not allowed to go.

Bill C-27 also clarifies and outlines several additional conditions available to a judge if the judge considers it desirable to secure good conduct from the offender.

Our new government was just elected in January. We said that we would tackle crime to make our streets safer. What is a bit ironic is that the NDP and the Liberals also said that they would take steps to tackle crime but we have seen no evidence of that so far in this session.

Bill C-27 is one of the many initiatives the government has taken toward attaining the goal of making our streets safer. We consider offenders, who are at high risk of offending sexually or violently, to be a very serious threat to public safety.

I support this bill, as do all members on this side. I hope other members of the House will see how important these provisions are and how they are necessary measures that can be implemented as soon as possible to protect Canadians, protect children and protect society from the worst offenders.

Judges Act

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the member for Ottawa South, but being a veteran in dealing with the member for Nepean—Carleton, I think I can manage.

Briefly put, Bill C-9 concerning conditional sentencing was saved by the Liberal Party on this side, including crimes that deal with gang violence. Bill C-10 involving mandatory minimums was in fact an extension of a Liberal program first instituting mandatory minimums in 1995. Finally, the three strikes legislation is based on a Republican model, sadly, and the Republicans went down to defeat. We can only wish the same for the members on the other side. This legislation is clearly unconstitutional.

That brings me back to the substance of this bill, which is constitutionality, judicial independence and judicial integrity. Where are the members on the other side? Where was the Minister of Justice at committee yesterday, for instance, to answer this very simple question, “Do you have respect for Canada's judiciary?” Conservatives are not answering the questions the way they should be answered, questions about whether they believe in their country, whether they love Canada, and many other things, and whether they believe in an independent judiciary.

The answer from members on this side to all of those questions is yes, we do.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in relation to courts, is the bill before us. It is my pleasure to give the opposition response to this bill going to third reading.

The bill deals with judicial salaries and allowances, judicial annuities and other benefits. Bill C-17, to put it in its historical context, is the second government response to the 2003 Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. The previous government had introduced Bill C-51 on the same subject. Historical context is very important because the people of Canada can see that action was undertaken by all governments with respect to this stagnant file.

As usual, Bill C-51, the predecessor legislation brought in under a Liberal government, was far more comprehensive and far more meaningful. It proposed a whole bunch of items that dealt with more than just the strict recommendations of the commission. There were a number of court related reforms, including the expansion of the unified family courts across this country.

In my own province of New Brunswick, there is a serious backlog of Family Court cases. Bill C-17 did not deal with this issue. I know the member for Tobique—Mactaquac would be interested to know that there are women waiting in all judicial districts of New Brunswick for dates for hearings before justices of the Family Court to deal with serious issues of child custody and the making of payments for support and maintenance. These are very serious matters. These matters touch everyone in the country. I thought it was important to underline that they hit home; they hit New Brunswick. The paucity of regulations in Bill C-17 as opposed to Bill C-51 just show how the government is not concerned with holistic or wholesome justice reforms, but just piecemeal ones.

Sadly, Bill C-51 did not proceed beyond first reading. It died on the order paper with the dissolution of the last Parliament.

In the reference case, the Supreme Court of Canada also concluded that government delays in responding to the reports of judicial compensation commissions can damage judges’ morale. It could even cast doubt on the independence of the judiciary.

Indeed, the independence of our judiciary is very much at stake in this bill as presented. Many times courts and commissions have established how critical the financial security of judges is, not only for maintaining judicial independence and impartiality, but also for attracting persons most suited by their experience and ability to be excellent candidates for the bench.

There seems to be a general attack on the judiciary presented by the government in its totality of justice bills. When we combine the effects of Bill C-17, which strikes at the heart of judicial independence, with the effects of Bill C-9 on conditional sentences, which is taking away the discretion of judges, and when we even combine it with the process involving the approval of Justice Rothstein to the Supreme Court of Canada, although it met with great success in that instance, it still puts the independence of the judiciary in question. It is as if the government has something in its craw about judges.

The bill completes the picture in striking at the heart of the independent findings of the commission. The report of the commission, and that was the McLennan commission, recommended that federally appointed judges receive a 10.8% salary increase effective April 1, 2004. As we know, Bill C-17 proposes an increase of 7.25% as of the same date, April 1, 2004, so where does the difference come from?

The commission reviewed Canada's economic situation. I was curious to note that the minister pretended as if the commission did not review the economic conditions prevailing in society. He would therefore lead us to infer that the commission irresponsibly would avoid looking at the economic conditions pertaining in this country and still recommend a salary increase.

Of course it looked at our economic conditions, and thanks to the great economic stewardship over the past decade or more of the member for LaSalle—Émard, this country has an enviable economic situation. For the minister to say that this was not considered sufficiently by the commission is in fact wrong. It is wrong in fact and it is wrong in opinion.

Canadians can see through this. They can see that this agenda of law and order also means that judges should do as the government feels they should. They should not be independent. They should be tethered to the purse of the government and its agenda with respect to justice issues.

Instead of simply establishing whether the government had sufficient funds to comply with the salary recommendation of the independent commission, the government believes that consideration also should be given to the other economic and social priorities of the government. It is curious to note that it is not the economic and social priorities of the community, but of the government, for on the same day that the Conservatives received news of a $13.2 billion surplus, they announced cuts of over $1 billion, hurting the most disadvantaged and helpless people in the community.

Does this mean that federal judges' salaries and, most important, their independence, is not a priority for the current government? Clearly Canadians are smart enough to draw that assumption from the government's actions. It is not important that judges be independent, the government says, so it will cut their salaries. It will also find judges whose beliefs the government believes in and put them on the court.

After cutting a billion dollars in social programs on the same day they received the news of the $13 billion-plus surplus, how can the Conservative government argue that it is refusing the conclusions and recommendations of the independent McLennan commission in this context? Is the minority government once again putting its own partisan agenda before the needs and the greater good of Canada? Are the Conservatives once again leaving Canadians behind in favour of their own political agenda?

I am not the only one questioning the government decision to come up with another number for the judges' salaries. The Canadian Superior Court Judges Association is also concerned by the rejection of the independent commission's salary recommendations.

I know that the member for Nepean—Carleton will be very interested in the accountability aspects of the bill. Having sat with that member for Nepean—Carleton in the hearings for Bill C-2 in the legislative committee last spring, I know he is keenly interested in the issues of accountability.

How accountable is it that the recommendation emanating from the independent commission, the independent judges salary commission--and members of the House will know that Bill C-2 is replete with the word independent--was rejected by the government? How accountable is that? I can only echo the concerns of the Canadian Superior Court Judges Association. It seems to me that we would have to go a long way in the history of this country to see political activism from our judiciary.

I echo those concerns. I am troubled by what seems to be the government picking up another salary figure and justifying it by criticizing the independent commission for not having accepted its arguments in the first place. It is as if the Conservatives should have picked Gwyn Morgan or some other Tory contributor to sit on the commission so they could have had the results they wanted. That, in their minds, would have closed the accountability loop.

Once again, this is a narrow approach that we have heard a lot about in recent years from our southern and formerly governing Republican neighbours, who say, “If you're not with us, you're against us”. The government seems to reject the independence of a commission. Those members in fact reject the good judgment of our judges and they are piercing a sword in the very muscle of judicial integrity and independence in this country.

Canada does not work like that. Canadians do not like that kind of play. They like fair play. Bill C-17 is not about being for or against the commission recommendations per se. It is about independence and accountability and the impartiality of our judges.

Judges interact with the citizens of Canada, both victims and criminals, with people in the judicial system. They must be above reproach from any political incursion. They must be independent. They must have integrity. Above all, they must have the respect of all Canadians.

How are we to respect a government that does not respect the fact that people in Canada want their judges to be above politics and not to be besmirched by any cheap political process, which this non-accountability act compliant provision provides?

It is all about doing what we can to maintain the highest standard of judicial independence. We cannot jeopardize judicial independence in our system, the system that is from the common law that pertains throughout many countries in the world, and we cannot do it, foremost, to promote a partisan agenda. This is not acceptable.

Having said that, I will say that this bill going to third reading has some good aspects, as Bill C-51 did, aspects that the Canadian people should know about.

On the issues with respect to northern removal, my friend, the member for Yukon, will be interested to know that northern removal as it is defined in the bill has a bit of a negative connotation. It sounds like people are moving from the north and is something like how the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca wants Maritimers to move out west as part of a migration program from the government. It does not mean that at all.

What it really means is that justice will be done in the northern communities of this country. We often say from sea to sea to sea, and many Canadians who live in the south do not understand the concept of that third sea, but up near that third sea, as the member forYukon will know, serving as he does on the justice committee, delivering justice to the citizens of our great northern territories is often difficult. As such, the northern removal procedures set out in Bill C-51 and now carried through with Bill C-17 will do a great deal to improve the quality of justice in the northern parts of our community.

The supernumerary provisions, the rule of 80 provisions, will allow for a much more flexible system of judicial personnel appointments throughout many of our provinces. It will allow judges who have earned the combination of years of service and age to go to supernumerary status and be available essentially as part time judges to serve the provinces in which they reside.

This may do something to make up for the government's glaring error in not following the script of Bill C-51 in appointing a unified family court, particularly in provinces that do not have a unified family court such as New Brunswick, and we hope it does. On this side, we trust the chief justices of this province to manage their courts properly. We give them the respect they are due and hope that this bill aids them in that process.

I leave members with these thoughts about the application of this act and others with respect to judicial remuneration and judicial vacancies. It is to be hoped that we can move forward in the House in a non-partisan way, realizing that the judiciary should be above all aspects of partisanship. The judiciary, when appointed, should be on a pedestal. The judiciary should be above the concerns that often occur in this place and, above all, the judiciary should be respected by the Canadian public.

The Canadian public wants a judiciary that metes out justice and settles the disputes in our communities that happen from time to time in a way that is beyond reproach. It is to be hoped, with the beginning of new negotiations involving the same commission, that the next government, which I sincerely hope for the sake of all Canadians will not be a government made up of people from that side, will respect the principles of judicial independence and the integrity of our judges and adopt the recommendations when they come forward from the next quadrennial Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Have we had any? You gutted Bill C-9.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

One of our witnesses, I think it was on Bill C-9--anyway, one of these many bills that could incarcerate people longer--suggested there would be 5,400 more people serving their time in prison. That works out roughly to $475 million a year, if I calculated right, but in that ballpark. We don't want to get into exact figures, but that works out to roughly $475 million simply for operational costs.

If you needed to--let's say they overestimated the 5,400--bring it down to 5,000, plus whatever the other bills might bring into the prisons, do you have room for 5,000 more prisoners, or would there have to be capital costs?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Certainly in my discussions not only with the Toronto Police Association but with the Toronto police chief, they've been very supportive, not only of Bill C-10, but of Bill C-9, which was unfortunately gutted by the opposition.

On the issue with respect to the increase in penalties, yes, we believe that is important along with policing. You can't have one without the other. It doesn't help to simply have tough laws on the books without policing. So the policing that we have seen the Toronto police do this summer has been exceptional--very hard work, targeted. I think you should have the chief here to talk about the use of resources to actually apprehend these individuals. The stories they're telling me about the amount of manpower they need--or “person-power”, whatever the politically correct term is--has been incredible.

They're investing all this in police presence, but if they're not getting appropriate sentences, it's a revolving door over and over again. They point out the fact of the numerous killings or shootings in Toronto that were committed by people out on bail. The numbers are simply staggering. So, again, it shows you that having those people incapacitated, even if it's not going to deter them when they're out, is going to save lives in a very real sense.

So what we've tried to do in listening to the police.... For example, the issue of the loaded or restricted firearm inside a motor vehicle, just possession, is a growing problem. Every police officer walking up to a car now has to assume that there is a loaded firearm in that car. That's an intolerable state of affairs, something that would have never occurred....

I remember years ago prosecuting back in 1977. A police officer on highway number 1 at 2 o'clock in the morning stops a car, the door opens, and the handgun falls out. That was such an exceptional circumstance back then. Now they assume it occurs.

The handguns are being kept under the front driver's seat. So there will be three or four gang members in the car, and then it's difficult to prove the possession--so very difficult to prove. We believe that if you're making a practice of carrying this handgun in your car, loaded, there should be significant consequences.

Now, if the NDP say, look, we should move that up to four years, in that kind of circumstance, I would say, yes, let's move it up to four years. We haven't done that; we've said three years.

Again, I disagree with what the Liberals did. For example, a firearm, a long gun...an aboriginal using it and getting eight years doesn't make sense to me either. There has to be a proportionate response. So I would reject the Liberal response as being one that would unnecessarily increase the inmates in prison of a certain type, who can, I believe, be deterred in other ways other than using the Liberal approach.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Our researchers can access that easily, and I assume they have or they will, because that data is useful and obviously relevant.

This is one bill, we numbered it Bill C-10, but there are two other bills, Bill C-9 and Bill C-27. Each of these bills, Minister, deals with the Criminal Code, deals with sentencing. I'm wondering why we have three bills. Why didn't the government simply introduce one bill dealing with Criminal Code sentencing, dealing with conditional sentencing, in this bill mandatory minimums and the other involving long-term offenders? Wouldn't that have been the simple and prudent thing to do? Why did you choose three bills instead of one?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's a very good question.

Obviously, firearms come from somewhere. Most of the firearms--95% of the handguns used in these homicides and drug-related crimes--are stolen or otherwise illegally obtained. We don't want to make it easier on the individual who is actually stealing the firearms by breaking into homes. I know that in Bill C-9, the NDP, the Liberals, and the Bloc said that breaking and entering is not that serious an offence because it's a property offence. The point is that many of these handguns and firearms are stolen from people's houses. We want to specifically deter that kind of conduct by increasing the mandatory minimum penalty to three years for a first offence...as well as the trafficking.

We want to dry up the supply of guns. It's not enough that we are strengthening our border patrols, as our government has done, to prevent the flow of guns into Canada. That's very important. We know that many of these guns are coming from the United States. These guns are illegal, and it's important to stop that trafficking.

But we also want to take care of our own house. I don't want to simply blame Americans for our problems if we're not making the effort to stop the breaking and entering into homes where these guns are being stolen. Again, a very key element to drying up the supply of guns is actually taking steps inside of Canada to do that.

To clarify, for break and enter--I might be mistaken--on the first offence, it is a year for firearms, and with a robbery it's three years.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, concerning Bill C-17, I suggest to you there have been many comments made, and some in a political forum—the other place. I want to make sure, and Mr. Cotler and all Canadians want to make sure, that you have an opportunity to say here today that you have the utmost respect for the judiciary, which I'm sure as an officer of the court you do.

I'd like to hear you say it, because the questioning is in this line of thinking. There have been comments made in the press and in the other place about Liberal judges. Bill C-9 and Bill C-10, as you well know, take away some discretion of judges in certain circumstances, which could be seen as a disdain for judicial discretion. In fact, the whole process with respect to Justice Rothstein's confirmation could be seen as putting judges on public example. Notwithstanding that it was a very positive experience in this instance, it could be seen as putting judges on public display for public approval by elected politicians.

Now we have BillC-17, and the concern is this. There are provisions in Bill C-17, for many of which the ship has gone by in the public somewhat, and we're on the road to finally getting a settlement of the issue. But there are contained in Bill C-17 issues with respect to...let's call it “the rule of 80”, or the ability of judges to go supernumerary in certain provinces. Supernumerary judges may not be under the same leash or chain from their respective chief justices as are full-fledged justices. This bill, when passed, will result in more supernumerary judges; I know that from the field.

I want to hear from you first of all on this issue of respect for judges. I want to hear from you, if I may be so bold as to ask, what you are going to do to get these supernumeraries to work. Are you going to appoint other judges to fill the backlog of vacancies that exist? Was there any rhetoric from you or your department with respect to getting chief justices to get their supernumerary judges to work to make the system work? You will realize there's a heavy caseload coming down the pike in justice. We will need our judges.

The two-part question, in short, is, do you have respect for judges, and will you resource the field enough so that justice gets done?

Criminal Code

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to address Bill C-9.

The bill was amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I was pleased to support the amended bill when it came before the House at report stage this past Wednesday evening. I commend the members of the justice committee for their efforts, and particularly the member for London West for her diligent work on this bill and all justice legislation that has come before this 39th Parliament.

I have taken a keen interest in law and order issues and safe communities throughout my time in elected office. Prior to becoming the member of Parliament for North Vancouver in 2004, as mayor of the district of North Vancouver, I worked closely with local police, legal and judicial officials to continually monitor crime, law and order and sentencing issues in our community.

My constituents in North Vancouver, like all Canadians, want to be safe in their homes and communities and, as elected officials, it is our duty to ensure that the laws we craft in this place achieve that goal and do not have unintended consequences because they were rushed through Parliament without proper consideration.

I support the principle of Bill C-9 as it was originally tabled by the government in May, namely, the tightening up of the use of conditional sentencing. However, the amendments made to Bill C-9 at committee were necessary and they improved the bill. They certainly do not gut the bill, as some government members and the Minister of Justice have suggested. In fact, this bill provides that a person convicted of, first, a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code; second, a terrorist offence; or, third, a criminal organization offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more, is not eligible for a conditional sentence, nor can a conditional sentence be given where a minimum sentence for the offence applies.

We have heard rumblings that the Conservatives are planning to use justice issues as a wedge issue in the next federal election, and it appears this strategy has already begun. The Conservative government has introduced 11 justice related bills in this House, knowing full well that due to the short life of minority Parliaments, some of these bills will die on the order paper. In the next election, the Conservatives will then try to convince Canadians that all other parties are soft on crime, wrongly suggesting that we delayed or blocked this legislation.

In fact, the Liberal justice plan will fast-track 6 of the 11 justice bills, but this is typical of its style of politics. The Conservatives have yet again looked south at their republican idols and pulled a page from the Bush-Rove playbook, namely, “you either agree with us, or you're with the enemy”.

Despite the recent efforts of the party opposite, this is not the United States and this strategy will not work. It is dishonest. The Liberal Party and Liberal members in this House are not soft on crime. We want effective, smart laws. Despite what the Conservatives may try to convince Canadians, they know where we stand and the Conservatives know that I stand for effective, smart law and order measures.

I understand my time is running out. I had much more to say but I will say that we are pleased, from the opposition side, to have made our offer to fast-track the bills initiated under the former Liberal government, plus two new ones, for a total of 6 of 11 bills, and to get on with making thoughtful, smart improvements to Canada's Criminal Code, not for political gain but for the safety and well-being of Canadians.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-9 at third reading stage and to put things into context.

In 1996, the Minister of Justice—if my memory serves me correctly, it was Allan Rock at that time—introduced Bill C-41 following a federal-provincial-territorial conference. At the time of the conference, all the justice ministers—whether they were Liberal, New Democratic, Conservative or separatist—were quite concerned about the possibility of the inmate population doubling. Canada had the fourth highest incarceration rate in the world at the time. When Allan Rock introduced Bill C-41, one third of all inmates were serving time for failing to pay fines.

The government always forgets this little piece of history, but when Bill C-41 was introduced, it received support from all the justice ministers. There was even a white paper on the growth in inmate population and we were well aware that the United States was the country that incarcerated the most, followed by Russia, Canada and South Africa.

When Bill C-41 was passed, an intermediate offence was created between imprisonment and probation, called conditional sentencing. However, it would be terribly dishonest to suggest that conditional sentencing, which is provided under section 742 of the Criminal Code, is not well defined.

Sometimes we hear government types talking as though conditional sentencing were completely up to the judge's discretion, that judges do not obey a single rule and that the legislator left this option open without any framework.

I want to remind this House and the government that before handing down conditional sentences, in accordance with section 742, judges must respect four conditions. First, there must be no minimum sentence. Second, the sentence, imprisonment, must be less than two years. Third, the judge must be convinced that the person does not pose a risk to the community where that person is known. Fourth, the judge must be convinced that the conditional sentence corresponds to one of the sentence determination objectives codified in section 718 in the Criminal Code. This is an important condition, as well, I believe.

Once again, we must remember that the Canadian Sentencing Commission—the Archambault commission—which the Conservatives set up at the end of their mandate in 1984, recommended in its 1987 report that Parliament codify a number of sentencing objectives. Among the objectives listed in the Criminal Code are deterrence, denunciation and reprobation. There is also rehabilitation. The judge must be convinced that at least one of these objectives applies to impose a conditional sentence. There can be a number of objectives, but there are situations where denunciation takes precedence and requires a prison sentence. In a certain number of other situations, the objective is rehabilitation, and the judge can impose probation or a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Section 742 clearly states that a judge must take a number of factors into account.

Throughout the committee's review of this bill, the Conservatives, with their own special brand of demagoguery, have tried to convince everyone that anyone opposed to Bill C-9 was soft on crime, indecisive and lacking solidarity with victims of crime.

I believe this kind of talk is unacceptable, to say the least. Conditional sentencing is, in reality, an extremely marginal part of the sentencing system.

I have some statistics from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which supports Bill C-9.

In 2003—these are the most recent statistics available—257,127 cases ended in a conviction. Of those 257,127 cases, 13,267 individuals were given conditional sentences. 13,267 conditional sentences in 257,127 convictions is a little less than 6%.

The Conservatives are worried about conditional sentencing. It is possible that in some of those 13,267 convictions conditional sentences were not appropriate. We must remember that conditional sentencing is a marginal part of the justice system and that it is governed by a number of conditions.

When a court of justice hands down a conditional sentence, the convicted person is subject to surveillance—this can be electronic surveillance, a curfew or a requirement to report to a supervisor or remain in a given jurisdiction. None of this is as discretionary as the government would have had us believe during this debate.

What did the government do with Bill C-9? It tried to introduce a list of offences.

The government, with a deplorable lack of discrimination, asked its officials to find and prepare a list of all offences in the Criminal Code punishable by more than 10 years' imprisonment . The list contained some 100 offences.

Just because an offence is punishable by 10 years' imprisonment does not mean that a judge will impose a 10-year sentence. The list of proposed offences will make it impossible, de facto, for a judge to hand down a conditional sentence.

The problem with this way of doing things is that it is so lacking in balance as to be ridiculous. Why ridiculous? Because there are certain offences in the Criminal Code punishable by five years' imprisonment for which we do not believe that conditional sentencing is appropriate.

For example, failure to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years, pursuant to section 215 of the Criminal Code, is punishable by imprisonment of two years.

However, it is a disturbing offence. It may be more disturbing that a neighbour found guilty of child negligence is free in the community than that someone is sentenced to ten years for pirating software.

Pirating software is certainly a reprehensible crime, a violation of intellectual property and intellectual fraud, but it is not clear that an individual found guilty of pirating software or having stolen a computer cannot serve his sentence in the community under appropriate supervision.

There are other types of offences not included by the Conservatives. Yet, our citizens may find them even more disturbing. For example, infanticide, abandonment of a child, criminal breach of contract, and kidnapping of a child under 16.

Not all these offences appear on the list, compiled by the Conservative government, of crimes that are punishable by ten years in prison or more.

However, that is not what this debate is about. This debate is about the difference between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. I will take this opportunity to point out that all opposition parties—my neo-Bolshevik friends, the Liberals and the Bloc—voted unanimously against Bill C-9 at the committee report stage. Why? Because this is a bill on whose principle we can agree. Everyone agrees that conditional sentences are not a constitutional right. There are offences for which we do not wish the offenders to serve their sentence in the community. The Bloc Québécois has never claimed otherwise, because we are responsible individuals.

It is not a matter of an automatic response and we hope the Conservatives will some day understand this. The Conservatives are opposed to the judiciary. They refuse to believe in the judgment of our judges. I will reword my statement. They refuse to believe in the ability of judges' to properly assess a situation. The Minister of Justice appeared before us. The Minister of Justice is my friend. I even feel like I am his little favourite. He seeks my presence, consults me and respects me. Our friendship will not be jeopardized simply because my party repeatedly opposes his bills. The minister is capable of separating his feelings of friendship for me—which I reciprocate—from the fact that I think he proposes bad bills. Indeed, the Minister of Justice is a man of great quality on a personal level.

However, his election platform makes no sense. As a little aside, thanks to the Access to Information Act, we obtained the analysis conducted by the Conservatives of their own platform. Not one public servant, familiar with the courts and understanding how the system works, would be willing to endorse the Conservative platform.

The Conservatives want to bring the justice system in line with American justice. God willing, this government will never win a majority.

Three ministers were able to cite just four bad decisions out of thousands. The judiciary needs to make it clearer to us as parliamentarians that the courts do not hand out conditional sentences in cases of serious personal injury, sexual assault or confinement, because these are crimes punishable by less than two years in prison.

It is not because a prison sentence is less than two years that the crime is not serious. However, the courts and the judges are far more discerning than the government would have us believe.

I see Conservative members champing at the bit. They want to ask me questions about break and enter, which is obviously a serious offence. The Supreme Court even said that a man's house is his castle. My house was robbed. They stole my VCR, three bottles of wine—you know how little I drink, I am practically a teetotaller—my CD collection, including a Diane Dufresne CD and a Charles Aznavour CD, and my computer. It felt like a terrible violation. It is not very pleasant to have your property stolen. Nonetheless, the Conservatives did not include break and enter in the list of exclusions.

The punishment for break and enter is life in prison. The Criminal Code has never been amended. Since the advent of the Criminal Code in 1892, a judge has never sentenced anyone to life in prison for break and enter.

In serious cases of break and enter a judge is certainly not going to hand down a conditional sentence.

My time is up, Mr. Speaker?