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.

Justice

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, our party promised to eliminate house arrest for people who commit serious crime.

Last night in the justice committee, opposition members, led by the Liberals, unanimously passed amendments that would virtually gut Bill C-9. The Liberals want house arrest to still apply to arson, to robbery, to auto theft, and to break and enter into homes. Victims of these crimes will tell us that house arrest is not a suitable punishment; it is a joke.

Why will the Liberals not help us restore Canadians' confidence in the justice system?

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians elected this new government, they elected a government to get tough on crime. They elected a government to stop the revolving door of the justice system.

One of the ways this government has started restoring Canada's confidence in the justice system is with Bill C-9, which implements our platform commitments to end house arrest for serious crimes.

Could the justice minister try to explain why the opposition has watered down this important bill?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over my time as the member of Parliament for the tri-cities, no issue has been more frequently raised by my constituents than the frustration over the seeming injustice in our justice system.

I and this Conservative government have heard those concerns and we are taking action to make our streets safer.

For example, we have introduced tough new legislation. Bill C-9 will limit or eliminate house arrest for dangerous violent criminals. Bill C-10 will establish a mandatory minimum amount of jail time for gun violence. Bill C-19 will create a new Criminal Code offence for street racing. Bill C-22 will raise the age of protection to 16 and protect tens of thousands of children from sexual abuse.

In our budget we committed millions toward tougher border security and millions more toward hiring new police officers from coast to coast.

The first responsibility of the state, before all else, is to protect law-abiding citizens from those who would do them harm. For 13 years the Liberals did nothing and for 13 years the NDP encouraged the Liberals to soften our already soft laws on crime.

This Conservative government is getting tough on crime and protecting Canadian families.

Justice and Human Rights

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference on Tuesday, June 6, your committee has considered Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), and agreed on Monday, October 23, to report it with amendments.

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

Yes, very briefly. The government's driving the ship here, and if their interest was really getting this legislation through, they could have done a lot of things more efficiently. The bills could have been drafted a little tighter and they could have been drafted in the same bill.

I really deeply suspect that the politicization of the justice issues lies at their feet, particularly when you have a press conference every week on a new justice initiative. So this is more about politics than a good working committee. We're going to have almost all the same witnesses for Bill C-10 as we had for Bill C-9. We're going to hear almost the same people all over again. Why couldn't it have been one bill? I know why, because there are another two months' or three months' news stories on a different bill in a different area.

You're hoisted by your own petard here, folks. I'm going to support the Bloc.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am respectful of Mr. Petit and of the team sitting across from me. I do not know how they work, but personally, I have to prepare for the meetings.

Take for example, Bill C-10, because we just finished our study of Bill C-9. Many people have sent us briefs on Bill C-10; we have a lot of documents to read. Moreover, some of us do not only sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I also sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and I replace Mrs. Freeman, who is ill.

I felt that three meetings per week to study Bill C-9 was acceptable, but if we went back to two meetings per week that would suit me, because it would give me the time to prepare and to study the documents. I do not know what you think of this, Mr. Chairman, but there is a great deal of material. Also, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is overwhelming us; they sent us pile of papers for Bill C-27 alone. We have to read everything we are sent, just to prepare ourselves. We just received the list of witnesses we want to hear on Bill C-10. Looking at the list of witnesses, I thought to myself it would be nice to have the time to make enquiries, to find out what this or that person has to do with this file.

It is not that we want to work less, it is that we would like to be able to work properly. If we meet on Monday afternoon, Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday afternoon, we will not have the time to prepare. That is why I agree with the motion. It is not that we do not want to work, because reading does not bother me, but it is getting difficult.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I will stop there, Mr. Chairman. He has succeeded in persuading me that this amendment is fair, and that it will guide courts satisfactorily in the future. I will therefore accept his view.

Nonetheless, I do have a comment for my colleagues across the way. I would reiterate the words of Giuseppe Battista, who is probably one of the best criminal lawyers in Quebec. He's very highly respected by the Superior Courts, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada in particular. He has told Parliament that if Bill C-9 were passed in its current form, crimes, not individuals, would be judged. This runs counter to all practices established by the courts, and counter to the principles of rehabilitation and punishment.

I have argued cases in court and in criminal court for 25 years, and always found it important to remind the judge that he or she was to judge the accused, not the crime. Committing a crime is a reprehensible act, regardless of the crime involved. As the saying goes, he who will steal a penny will steal a pound. It is unfortunate that our colleague is not here today, because I would tell him that when the issue is rehabilitation and punishment, we need to think about the person in the prisoner's box, not the crime.

Of course, we do have to take into account the crime itself, and the denunciation it calls for. That is exactly what conditional sentencing does. I repeat—I have read all 94 pages of the Proulx decision. I have cited them and filed them in court at least 20 times since 1996, and I can say that—for once—the Proulx decision is clear. The Supreme Court ruled that conditional sentencing was indeed a sentence of imprisonment. I have had clients to whom I strongly recommended that they do not agree to a conditional sentence, because they would not be able to comply with the extremely stringent conditions that courts frequently impose with conditional sentencing.

That is why I am ready to explain to any victims' group to which my colleagues—Mr. Petit or other colleagues—would care to invite me, the position that I advocate and will continue to advocate. We will take steps to ensure that the Criminal Code is adapted to a variety of situations, and to ensure that repeat offenders do not end up on our streets day after day.

However, though there are indeed victims' associations to argue one side of the case—and I do respect victims' associations—there are also other means to make one's case in Parliament. Forgive me for calling to your attention something that seems quite obvious, but we are here to discuss the Criminal Code, and the Criminal Code deals with crimes. Unfortunately, crimes are committed by individuals, and that is why we are here—to ensure that the Criminal Code is brought into line to reflect 20^th-century aspirations more effectively.

I will conclude by saying that I will vote for the amendment, because in my opinion it establishes satisfactory limits. We should bear in mind that we will guide the courts and explain to them that for certain crimes, such as the crimes provided for in Ms. Barnes' amendment, they will have to make limited use of conditional sentencing. Thus, we will do nothing to hinder the work of the sentencing judge or to influence the decision on what sentence to impose.

I hope that my colleagues will understand this argument and allow us to vote on this amendment as quickly as possible.

Thank you.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Like Mr. Lee, I would like the following facts to be on the record. I read Ms. Barnes' amendment rather late, but I did nonetheless read it. Like my government, I will be voting against the amendment, but I would like to explain why.

One of the reasons I am here in Parliament is that, as a practitioner of law—like Mr. Lemay—I have worked both for victims and for the Crown. In Bill C-9, Parliament's intent is to protect victims. I would like it known that I, Daniel Petit, wish to protect victims and do not wish to try by all kinds of means to protect what we have already tried unsuccessfully to protect in the past.

I would like it clearly noted that I am absolutely against the idea of having the amendment passed in this fashion. I want to stand in the way of leaving victims unprotected against crime, regardless of whether those victims are children, women or even men. I think that is very important. This is not about procedure and legal argument; this is about putting victims first.

[Catherine Kane, Senior Counsel, Director, Policy Centre for Victim Issues, Department of Justice]

Yes, you're correct that the Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear in relation to conditional sentences that the first point is to determine whether a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate. Then the next consideration is whether that term of imprisonment can be served in the community, and if so, under what conditions. In that case and in subsequent cases the court also clarified that, under the present law, no particular offences were ruled out of the scope of a conditional sentence, but that it was up to Parliament to decide what the parameters should be.

Bill C-9 is resetting those parameters to clarify when a conditional sentence should be considered appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I also understand Ms. Barnes' position here, as she sought information often from the same source, Mr. Lee.

So I'll go through the ruling here now.

Bill C-9 makes just one substantive change to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code. It provides that conditional sentences will not be available for offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment for 10 years or more.

The amendment proposes to replace this with an alternate scheme. The offences to which the amendment would apply are in some cases outside of what is covered by the bill.

In addition, proposed subsection (2) of the amendment allows for the exercise of discretion, which is not in keeping with the principle of Bill C-9.

On page 654, Marleau and Montpetit state: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

I must therefore rule the amendment inadmissible, as it introduces an alternate scheme, which goes against the principle and beyond the scope of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call this meeting to order.

The justice committee will now be dealing with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-9.

I see before me that there are three amendments, two of which to be dealt with at the outset.

The first amendment, L-1, is submitted by Ms. Barnes, London West.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I have the documents that we said we'd have for the committee on Monday on some of the cost analysis on Bill C-9. Shall I give that to the clerk?

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

I think he said something about the cost of legal aid for Bill C-9, Bill C-10, and Bill C-27. I think I heard that today in the locker room or somewhere.

No, that doesn't work. Oh well, darn it.

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

Right now, even at $126 million, if that's what the figure is going to be, none of that includes increased legal aid costs as a result of the government program, let's say, of Bill C-9, Bill C-10, and Bill C-27.

All we really know is that the government has put about $225 million in Mr. Flaherty's budget for prisons, when our estimate is that the capital for prisons is $1.5 billion. Notwithstanding that the government has done estimates for cabinet purposes on police, prison, and legal aid costs, we don't have those figures and we don't know the cost of the program.

Mr. Thompson is a big supporter of the program. He says his people tell him that whatever the costs are, we'll pay for it. I would think he and others would want to know what it's going to cost and would stand behind the figures.

I guess we're waiting for that. Mr. Moore may have them in his sheath of documents over there, but we'll have to wait for another day and another witness to get that answer. Is that right?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Yet, those people who have been accused of being involved in terrorist organizations have to request assistance from the provincial legal aid system. That's my understanding.

That brings me to my second question. I would like you to be perfectly comfortable and for your generosity to match my conviction that my question is well founded. You are aware that we are considering Bill C-9, whose future is uncertain, and Bill C-10. Both bills could lead to an increase in the prison population. You could tell me that an increase in the prison population is part of the Conservative Party's platform, but I don't want to ask you political questions.

Have you assessed the impacts of theses bills on the demand for legal aid? I know that you have. Otherwise you would not be living up to your responsibilities. Would you agree to providing us with these studies, if we guarantee you that they will be for our use only?