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

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Crowfoot.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-9 but it is definitely with mixed feelings as the bill has currently been amended.

We have to remember that the government and not only the party in government but also the opposition parties were elected. If we all remember the last election, we were elected with a message and a mandate from the people of Canada. Every party, the NDP and the Liberals, ran on a platform to get tough on crime. Therefore, when all members who were elected were back in the ridings, they were able to tell their constituents that we want to get tougher on crime.

The problem is, after the election, when the dust had settled down and it came time to take the measures, to take the steps, that would actually protect society, that would actually have an impact on making our streets safer, and that would have an impact on making our communities safer, only one party seems to be willing to move forward with those tough steps.

I had the privilege last night of attending a fundraiser for victims services in Toronto. In conversation with many of the people who are involved with victims services, one of the things that we find is that it is the victim that is all too often the forgotten member in society. Very quickly, thoughts turn to the offender, to the system, to the process and in all of that, unfortunately, too often it is the victim who is left behind. It is the victim left holding the bag.

The approach that the government chose to fulfill its commitment to eliminate conditional sentences for serious crimes was simple and it was straightforward. Bill C-9, as it was introduced by the government, was aimed at eliminating conditional sentences for offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment.

When I speak to my constituents in Fundy Royal, in the Saint John area and in Moncton, New Brunswick, and across the country, and when I speak to everyday Canadians, I listen to their stories and I hear their comments. They tell us that they do not want repeat serious offenders serving their sentences back in the community where they committed the offence.

I will speak specifically to violent offences, sexual offences, and very serious property crimes where people have been repeatedly victimized. They catch the individuals that were the perpetrators of these crimes. Finally, they get him or her before a court, expecting justice to be served. What do they find out? These individuals are going to serve sentences right in front of their own TVs in the comforts of their own homes on their sofas. That is not justice.

Our bill targeted offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more when prosecuted by indictment. This would have not only targeted offences in the Criminal Code, but also offences contained in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act punishable by 10 years or more.

We never claimed that our bill was perfect. There is no perfect bill, but it was a good bill. It was a bill that captured the most serious offences. The Minister of Justice , when he appeared before committee, said to the opposition that he was open to reasonable amendments to the bill. If the opposition members had some better idea than they could bring it forward. If they had an idea that would help eliminate conditional sentences for serious crimes and ensure consistency and certainty in sentencing, they could bring that forward as well.

However, the minister also pointed out that several of the property crimes were made ineligible by Bill C-9. When the House listens to this list there is probably no one listening, whether in the House or in our country, who does not know of someone who has been victimized by one of these crimes or perhaps has been victimized themselves.

There was theft over $5,000, and that includes serious auto theft which has been a problem in both our urban and rural areas. Identity theft, break and enter, these are serious offences. Arson, robbery, again very serious offences. Such offences should not be eligible for conditional sentence. They should not be eligible for house arrest and any amendments that did so would not be considered reasonable amendments by this government.

Obviously and unfortunately, the opposition parties did not agree. They preferred to spring an amendment in committee that essentially gutted the bill by limiting the restrictions to the availability of conditional sentences to “serious personal injury offences” as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code, terrorism offences and criminal organization offences. There are several serious problems with the approach put forward by the opposition.

Serious personal injury offences are defined in the dangerous offender part of the Criminal Code. The definition is designed for dangerous and long term offenders that are often referred to as the worst of the worst, not for offenders receiving a sentence of less than two years which is the maximum sentence for a conditional sentence.

We are talking about two completely different types of offenders. The serious personal injury category of offences, while that may sound appropriate when we look at the interpretation the courts have applied and we look at the code, is clearly not appropriate for this bill. It covers indictable offences punishable by 10 years or more and involving the use or attempted use of violence against another person or involving conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe, psychological damage upon another person.

The problem with relying on this definition as the opposition seems to want to do is that Canadians clearly do not believe that these offences should attract conditional sentence. The problem is the level of violence or endangerment must be objectively serious for an offence to constitute a serious personal injury offence. In addition, the commission of a serious personal injury offence, as defined, involves a degree of intent.

Under Bill C-9, as amended by the opposition working together the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals, this will work against making our streets and our communities safe from dangerous individuals, arsonists, people who steal cars, and people who rob elderly senior citizens. The way that the opposition has amended the bill every case would have to be argued by counsel and determined by the judge, based on all the circumstances, as to whether it can fit within the four corners of the serious personal injury offence definition. Obviously, this leaves no certainty in the law as to whether a long list of offences, some of which I have already itemized, are eligible for a conditional sentence or not.

As the Minister of Justice mentioned at report stage of Bill C-9, the Alberta Court of Appeal in Regina v. Neve concluded that robbery, for example, did not in that case constitute a personal injury offence. I should point out that robbery is an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for life potentially. In other words, the amendment proposed by the opposition parties would still allow conditional sentences in cases where they were not meant to be applied. That is for serious crimes, some of which are punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years or life.

We have to remember, and I was not here at the time, but some members in the House were when conditional sentencing was introduced, that we were assured that house arrest was not going to be used for serious crimes. It was sold to Canadians as something that would only be used in so-called minor cases. Yet, we see in cases involving crimes against children, involving recidivism, involving repeat offenders dealing with car thefts, thefts over $5,000, robbery, and arson, that individuals are getting conditional sentences.

This government has said enough is enough. We have listened to Canadians and we have said we will not allow individuals who repeatedly victimize their communities to serve their time in their own homes and the opposition parties are unified and working against us.

The amendment made to Bill C-9 by the opposition ignores the concerns of Canadians who want to see serious crime receive real punishment. They want to see consistency in sentencing, but above all they want themselves and their families to be safe. This will not be achieved by Bill C-9 as amended. I wish to oppose the amendments put forward by the opposition.

I call on all members of this House to work together to provide security for our communities.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the member opposite. He surely knows, and members of his party know, that the Conservative Party by no means has a monopoly on the desire to make Canada's streets and communities as safe as possible. There is no monopoly on that side of the House.

On this side of the House, as the Liberal Party, we feel very strongly that streets have to be as safe as possible. That is why 13 years of Liberal government have resulted in Canada still being recognized as one of the safest countries in the world.

Because often members opposite will talk about certain examples, I would like to ask the member directly, with respect to auto theft, for instance, if an 18 year old, hypothetically of course, succumbs to peer pressure and joins with two or three buddies, perhaps to some extent under the influence of alcohol, and they decide in concert to steal an automobile for an evening, should that 18 year old automatically go to jail, as is proposed by the member? That seems to me a rather unimaginative solution to a problem.

I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on that specific hypothetical.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

First, Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the premise of the member's preamble that all parties take crime seriously. I think the last 13 years of Liberal government that the member refers to have been absolutely atrocious when it comes to justice, when it comes to balance in our justice system, and when it comes to protecting communities and society, and I could go on in regard to arson, car theft, break and enter. Canadians, my constituents in Fundy Royal, and I think probably the member's own constituents, if he were to ask them, are fed up with these individuals receiving conditional sentences.

The member has to be reminded that in all cases, even currently, the crown prosecutor has the ability to proceed by way of indictment or by way of summary conviction. Under our bill, if a crown prosecutor elected to proceed by summary conviction in some cases that were less serious, a conditional sentence is still available.

It is only in the more serious cases, where the prosecutor proceeds by way of indictment, that we are saying we have to end this revolving door justice system that allows serious offenders, including those who repeatedly steal cars, to get those sentences. I do not know if the member does not think that is a serious problem, but it is a serious problem, and maybe he should ask--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. We have others who want to ask questions. The hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, having sat on the justice committee for the biggest part of the last 13 years, I will tell members that during the election campaign when I proposed these very measures to the public during campaign speeches, what surprised me was that the Liberal candidate and the NDP candidate in every case supported everything I said. They agreed with everything I proposed, in line with what we are trying to do will Bill C-9. We did not have a Bloc candidate there but I am sure he or she would have objected.

What did not surprise me is that when I got back to the committee, after being there for 13 years, suddenly there was a change. Obviously there was some real soft peddling on how to deal with crime and these issues. They were not believing what they said during the election campaign. That became very obvious. Especially after they made their amendments, it was totally obvious.

I did not expect anything different from the Bloc members, because they have always been soft on crime, but I did expect the Liberals and the NDP to maintain that attitude to support the public, which was calling out loud and clear, “Do something about the crime element. Get rid of house arrest for serious crimes”.

Did the member not hear the same message that I heard during the campaign? Why would he suppose that sudden soft peddling from the Liberals and the NDP took place in the committee during the debate?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Wild Rose and also the hon. member for Crowfoot, who is going to speak next, for consistently calling for safer communities and for being tireless advocates on behalf of victims, specifically children. I commend them both for their hard work on this file.

They know that over the past 13 years the Liberals and NDP liked to talk the talk but only one party is walking the walk when it comes to getting tough on crime. It is not good enough for them to say one thing to their constituents when they are back home or at debates and then do another when we are in the House of Commons and it comes time to protect communities.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-9. I note that over the number of years I have been in the House and serving on the justice committee, we brought forward bills like this as private members' bills. That happened a number of times. There were four or five private members' bills dealing with conditional sentences and dangerous offenders.

There were many different bills that came forward, bills that the people of Crowfoot, Alberta and Canada asked for, and then we watched as the government of the day slammed the door on legislation. That would basically tell Canadians that the responsibility for governments and for our law, for the justice system, was not to protect society.

That is what bills such as this are here to do.

My constituents have always brought forward their concerns over the release of violent offenders back into society. My efforts were to do something about the Liberal Party's neglect and its reckless treatment of conditional sentences, but yet again doors were slammed.

The frustration was felt not just by members of Parliament. The frustration was felt not just by the Conservative Party of Canada. The frustration was felt by victims. Time after time, calls and letters came in from people who had been victimized. They were not always from the primary victim, not always from the one who had been assaulted, not always from the one who had an offence committed against them. Sometimes the families of those victims felt that they personally had been victimized. They felt it especially when, a number of days after the trial, they would meet the individual who had committed the offence against them and see the individual released onto the streets of our communities.

I applaud the justice minister and the government for keeping their commitments and bringing forward the priorities they said they would and for making it clear that criminal justice system changes and changes to bills would take place. We are seeing that happen.

This morning I want to talk about a number of cases that we could perhaps learn from. Let us take a look at some of the past decisions, decisions that might have been an encouragement for this government to make the changes it is trying to implement here.

In one case from 2001, R. v. Bratzer, the offender committed three armed robberies in a period of a week. For those three armed robberies, he sat down, calculated what he was going to do, picked up the weapon of choice and decided to carry out these criminal offences. He went out and did it.

In reaching the sentence, the court considered as aggravating factors the fact that the accused had committed a series of planned robberies, that the offender had calculated, that he was masked at the time of the robbery, and that the offender admitted to the rush the robberies had given him, the sense of gratification, excitement and enthusiasm as he carried them out.

The court also mentioned the fact that the offender had no remorse. He placed the mask over his head. He picked up the weapon of choice. He knew that he was going to get a feeling of excitement and enthusiasm and he went out and committed the offences. The court looked at the circumstances and sentenced the accused to house arrest, to a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

Canadians are concerned when we watch our young men and women and those in society who say that they get a rush from perpetrating criminal offences and victimizing Canadians.

Another example of the inappropriate use of conditional sentencing can be found in the case of R. v. Bunn. In this case, the accused, a lawyer, was retained by a Russian lawyer to recover and remit inheritances of money, an estate, from six deceased Manitoba and Saskatchewan residents. In all cases, he converted part of the trust money received from each of the beneficiaries from his trust account to his general account. In other words, he was absconding with the money. Approximately $86,000 was converted through 145 separate transfers or transactions after he had already taken 10% as fees for his services.

At times I have dealt with lawyers and have thought their fees were astronomical on certain occasions, but in this case, after he received 10%, he then went back in and was able through fraud and other ways to abscond with $86,000 from the accounts. The accused was disbarred. He was convicted of six counts of breach of trust. He was sentenced to two years' incarceration.

After trial, but prior to the appeal, Bill C-41 and the conditional sentencing regime came into force. The Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal of the sentence and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. However, it is interesting to learn what Justice Bastarache said in the dissenting opinion:

It is well established that the focus of the sanction for criminal breach of trust is denunciation and general deterrence...In the past this has required that, absent exceptional circumstances, lawyers convicted of criminal breach of trust have been sentenced to jail...This emphasis on denunciation and general deterrence is, for a number of reasons, particularly important when courts punish lawyers who have committed criminal breach of trust. First, the criminal dishonesty of lawyers has profound effects on the public's ability to conduct business that affect people far beyond the victims of the particular crime...Second, as officers of the court, lawyers are entrusted with heightened duties, the breach of which brings the administration of justice into disrepute....

Judge Bastarache was right. Judge Bastarache realized in his dissenting opinion that what the courts were going to do was minimize one of the fundamental institutions that every democracy depends on, and that is the institution of rule of law and a criminal justice system. Confidence that those who would stand in such a place to represent an individual should not be, on the same hand, victimizing that same individual.

This last example shows that since their creation conditional sentences have been applied in cases where they were not intended by Parliament to be applied and where they certainly should not apply. That is why I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for bringing out in his speech the fact that when we stand in these halls and in this House and talk about the intent of law, the courts and the justices say, “Is this what Parliament meant?” We need to be very clear so that the justice system and the court system recognize that when this was put in place we did not intend much of what the courts are allowing to happen now.

Bill C-9 originally intended to restore confidence and permitted this use in appropriate cases only. However, as amended, Bill C-9 does not offer any guarantee that conditional sentences will not be given in serious cases of violent crime, property crime and drug crime. The bottom line is that the Liberal amendment to Bill C-9, supported by the Bloc and the NDP, does not answer the concern of Canadians. It does not make their homes safer. It do not make their streets safer. It will not restore confidence in the conditional sentence sanction or the administration of justice generally.

If Bill C-9 passes in its present form, this House will have missed an extremely important opportunity to do its duty to ensure greater respect for the law on the part of ordinary Canadians and to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a million children living in poverty in Canada. These children are growing up unable to benefit from the services that would help them become responsible and productive citizens. As we all know, poverty is one of the main underlying causes of crime.

According to my colleague, would it not be better to ensure that the provinces have the money they need to fight poverty, rather than having to build more prisons to lock up many people who would have never turned to crime if they had been given even a bit of a chance?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of different conditions lead to crime. Parliament has to lay down the structure of what is acceptable in society and what is not. We have to be guided by certain principles. The protection of society is the responsibility of our criminal justice system. When drafting this type of law, politicians need to be aware of the fact that the protection of our society is very important.

My colleague is right. There are many conditions that lead to criminal activity. Where appropriate, governments must step in and be aware of the factors that could lead to crime. Governments must get involved.

Bill C-9 does not deal with all of the background. Those are areas at which governments have to look. Bill C-9 indicates what would happen when individuals put themselves in that position. Are we going to go back and start diluting everything that has been done here? Are we going to allow people to be victimized because an individual was brought up without all the things that perhaps would have allowed him or her to contribute to society? Although we have to look at departments, social services and other things, and the government is, there needs to be balance when someone crosses the line. There has to be a system in place that says this is unacceptable.

There have been cases where criminals walk through the prison doors back out on to the streets before the victims are out of the hospital. That is not acceptable. Bill C-9 would provide incarceration for some of these offences.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member on the amendments. I think they are positive. I do not really think taking one case and talking about in the House of Commons is that helpful. Over the last 10 years, on a Canada-wide basis, crime rates with respect to property crime, violent crime, youth crime and homicides have decreased.

As a member of the justice committee, what is his view on the reasons for this? A number of reasons could perhaps be advanced such as demographics, or maybe we are doing a better job at getting at the cause of crime or maybe the judicial system is doing a better job. There must be some reasons being advanced in research as to why our crime rate is decreasing.

I agree with the hon. member that we have to toughen up the legislation with respect to conditional sentencing, which is about 10 years old. It does need to be reviewed.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I go to my constituency, I meet with seniors. I ask them if they feel safer today on the streets than they did 15 or 20 years ago. The answer is no. I also have asked them if they feel safer today when they go into the mall or when they park in an underground parkade and then make their way into the mall. Every one of them says no.

They recognize that gang and drug crimes are up as are many other criminal activities and they do not feel safer. In fact, most of them say they do not feel safer in their very own homes today. The question specifically comes from a premise that crime is down. Violent crime, gang crime, drug crime and gun crime are up.

One of the things I am also very much troubled about is property crime. More and more people are saying that the police do not have the resources or the time to investigate. They are saying that they are not even going to report those crimes.

In fact, when we look at some of the sexual assaults, even more troubling than property crime not being reported, many young men and young women are saying that they are not going to go through the system to even report because the government turns a blind eye to the offender--