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

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing comments from the Liberal, Bloc and NDP members which cause me a lot of problem. They are talking as though conditional sentencing is being removed by the bill. That is just simply not true. What the bill deals with is the mandatory imposition of minimum sentences for violent crimes.

I can think of situations. In Edmonton not very long ago four young thugs got on one of the rapid transit trains and killed one of the people on that train. That is a violent crime and for that there should be a minimum sentence. I cannot believe those folks over there are prepared to close their eyes to that. If they read the bill, they will see that the conditional sentences are still available for what we call the lesser misbehaviours. Why do they not simply tell the truth in their debates and deal with it properly?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish that were true, but the bill includes a whole series of property crimes. It is not just violent crimes that are caught by the scope of the bill, and that is a serious problem with the legislation before us.

The member talked about an incident. I resent the implication that should this incident come before the courts, the judge will somehow be lenient on the people who perpetrated that kind of violent crime. I do not believe for a second that a judge goes to work every day with the intention of being lenient on people who commit serious, violent crimes. I do not think that is a characteristic of our criminal justice system. It is disrespectful to characterize and stereotype judges in that way. It is just not the way the system works and there is no proof of that kind of allegation.

Judges want to do the best job they can. They want to ensure that the sentences they mete out are representative and appropriate to the crimes that have been committed. I do not believe there is one judge in our country who wants to go easy on violent crime, not for one second.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Don Valley East, I am pleased to rise on the subject of criminal justice in Canada and Bill C-9, the conditional sentencing reform bill.

All Canadians value their safety and security. We want communities where we live, work and raise our children without fear and threat of violence. At the same time, we also desire something that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau called “a just society”; that is a society built upon the principle of justice, fairness and the rule of law.

Throughout the world Canada is envied by other nations because individuals enjoy rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the rights and freedoms of an individual are compromised by a criminal act, Canadians expect our criminal justice system to respond accordingly. We are not a vengeful people, but we do want our system of criminal justice to mete out sentences that are proportional to the gravity of the offence. In other words, the more serious the offence, the more serious the consequences will ensure.

That has always been the case since we enacted the Criminal Code over a hundred years ago. As the House is well aware, laws are not static and they must change over time. Over the past century, we have amended the Criminal Code to keep it in pace with changes in technology, changes in society and to develop new ways to deal with criminal offences.

Probation and conditional sentences are relatively new tools in the criminal justice system to prevent people convicted of less serious and non-violent offences from winding up in jail. Certain conditions are set out in the Criminal Code that a convicted offender must live up to or face more serious consequences if those conditions are breached. These tools can be very effective in crime prevention. In fact, these tools provide valuable alternatives to incarceration and allow people who can be safely managed in the community to remain in the community.

Probation and conditional sentences permit non-violent minor offenders the opportunity to continue with their jobs and provide for their families. Contrary to the rhetoric that we often hear in the House, my colleagues and I in the Liberal Party do in fact want serious sentences for serious crimes. Yet, at the same time, we do not want a hastily crafted bill with serious flaws to be rushed through Parliament just to satisfy vague election promises.

I want to share with the House a few statistics that my fellow members may find of use in this debate. Aboriginal people already make up nearly one in five admissions to Canada's correctional services, while they represent only 3% of the population. In Saskatchewan, the province with the highest percentage of aboriginal people, the minister of justice in that province has commented that the use of penalties focused on native traditions rather than simple prison time has had some success.

This form of conditional sentences encourages native communities to find alternatives to jail by, for example, providing restitution to the victim of a crime, volunteering with a charity or attending counselling or addiction programs. By wiping out these alternatives in legislation contained in Bill C-9, many more aboriginal Canadians will find themselves behind bars.

Bill C-9 would adversely affect remote communities especially. In Nunavut, for example, territorial judges handed down 203 conditional sentences in 2005, compared with 189 jail terms.

As my colleague from London West has aptly commented on this legislation, the bill appears to use the equivalent of a legislative sledgehammer where the equivalent of a legislative scalpel is required.

It is widely acknowledged that Bill C-9 covers a wide range of offences, several of which involve non-violence. The bill covers very serious crimes such as hijacking, manslaughter, attempted murder and sexual assault with a weapon. These are all serious offences. I am sure we all agree that they must be dealt with in a serious manner.

However, at the same time the bill was drafted in such great haste that it also includes unauthorized use of computer, cattle theft, mail theft and bestiality. I am not certain that the Minister of Justice had theft of livestock in mind when he considered, for example, what would be an appropriate sentence for sexual assault with a weapon. If he did, then the bill is serious flawed and so too is the logic behind the legislation.

According to David Paciocco, a criminal law professor at the University of Ottawa, not only would Bill C-9 put people behind bars who did not belong there, but lawyers and judges would be forced to find ways to avoid the ban on conditional sentencing. In addition, judges would also be forced to demand higher levels of evidence to secure a conviction while prosecutors may lay lesser charges to ensure conditional sentences are still an option.

Moreover, if the judges are further restricted and unable to assign appropriate sentences for non-violent crimes, we will witness certain increases in the number of people pleading not guilty, thereby our courts will experience more overcrowding and an increased court cost to the taxpayers.

A further problem with Bill C-9 is that it would force judges to arrive at a bleak choice, either choose prison or nothing at all. While this may appeal to sloganeers who would lock everyone up and throw away the key, in reality the stark choice between jail or nothing would more likely benefit the criminal rather than prevent crime in the future.

Judges need alternatives other than simply jail time. Unfortunately, Bill C-9 is a hastily drafted piece of legislation that is deeply flawed and should be seriously reconsidered by the government.

Bill C-9 in effect would affect approximately one-third of more than 15,000 conditional sentences set by courts each year. This number represents about 5% of all the sentences handed down each year. It is therefore estimated that Bill C-9 would result in an additional 3,000 to 5,000 being admitted to provincial jails. In many circumstances these are jail facilities that are already overcrowded, presenting a threat not only to the safety of the offenders, but also safety of the prison guards who we rely on to run these facilities.

In conclusion, Bill C-9 contains a series of unintended consequences that we can already identify. We need to take a careful and more considerate examination of the legislation before it ever becomes law.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. I am concerned about the issue of how the conditional sentencing changes will affect the aboriginal population who are incarcerated at rates much higher than anyone else in the general population. In Saskatchewan 64% of conditional sentences are being handed out to aboriginal offenders.

Does the member have any thoughts on the implications of this for further incarceration of aboriginal people who need preventative programs to work with and conditional sentencing circles?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, statistics show that aboriginal people already make up an inappropriate amount of the population in prisons compared to that of the general public. Traditional justice and sentencing circles have been used in Saskatchewan. They have been more effective than putting them in jails.

The removal of conditional sentencing would disallow the aboriginal communities to use their alternative methodology to keep people out of jail and allow them to become contributing members of society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her insight. Obviously there are many problems with the bill.

In previous questioning on the bill, some Conservative members seem to have understood that the bill only applies to violent crimes. Clearly it has a much wider application than that. In light of that and all of the comments we have heard from professors and people in the field of criminology and in this House through a very good debate, does the member think this bill can be saved at committee? Does she think the government took the time necessary to go through all of the applications? Obviously it is clear that the government's own members, some of them big spokesmen on crime and justice, do not even understand it. Can the bill be saved?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill looks at extreme cases such as sexual assault with a weapon and it also looks at mail theft and computer theft. It mixes and meshes many things. It is not a very thoughtful bill. It has been very hastily constructed. If the bill goes to committee, it is important that these things be removed. If hon. members on the government side do not understand the flaws in the bill, or do not even understand what it covers, then it is important that they first of all understand the bill in its totality, look at other legal opinions and not be so set on locking up everyone in jail.

They should understand the bill. They should understand the implications of the bill. It will give a person who has stolen some mail the same sentence as someone who committed a heinous crime. The bill could be saved if it is sent to committee and people put some thought into making appropriate changes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the member's last answer.

There is a concern that the bill would not survive a charter challenge. There are many unanswered questions and we are being asked to vote on a bill that will have profound implications for the dispensing of justice right across this country.

Does the hon. member think that the government, in its haste to fulfill an election promise, has not done the appropriate due diligence to provide adequate legislation that will withstand charter challenges and actually be useful to courts and to people in the various provincial jurisdictions across this country?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like the accountability bill, this bill will have a charter challenge and I thank the member for bringing it to the attention of the House. It will create more confusion in the system, more negotiations, et cetera, if it ever were to go through. If the bill is unconstitutional, I hope that the wisdom of the House will prevail.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), be now read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some degree of concern that I rise in this House today to speak on Bill C-9. I am concerned because the government's recent policy statements are aligning us increasingly on American policies and because prisons, which account for 25% of Quebec's spending on policing and criminal justice, do little to reduce crime overall.

According to a study by Pierre Lalande entitled “Punir ou réhabiliter les contrevenants?”, which discusses the merits of punishing versus rehabilitating offenders, mass incarceration does take a toll on the lives of those who are imprisoned and those around them. Some authors suggest that there are very well-documented categories of collateral effects of imprisonment.

First, there are various effects on the future lives of individuals who are incarcerated, in the sense that they will have a harder time finding work when they are released.

Then, there are effects on their physical and mental health, including psychological problems inherent in spending time inside, and risks associated with the numerous communicable diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis, encountered in penal institutions.

With respect to family life, there are consequences on the relationship between spouses and consequences on the children.

The consequences on family, employment and income make the risk of reoffending high.

Finally, the community at large is made to suffer because of mass incarceration. Money is spent on that at the expense of higher education and other public programs and services, which could otherwise be much more extensive, thus countering poverty and giving people less of a reason to resort to petty theft to feed themselves and their children and put a roof over their heads. Add to that the problems experienced by prison staff.

In addition, there is a lot of research on the effectiveness of imprisonment to suggest that, upon release, offenders are just as likely to reoffend as they were when they arrived.

The conclusion is obvious: prisons do not ensure the rehabilitation of offenders. Some limited experiments have shown that carefully planned programs might reduce recidivism, provided that they address the situations and attitudes that have landed offenders in jail or prison in the first place.

In 2002-03, the average annual cost of detaining an individual in a provincial or territorial institution was $51,454, as compared to a mere $1,792 to monitor an offender within the community.

Conditional sentencing has a significant effect on the rate of fresh detentions, which have decreased by 13% since conditional sentencing came into effect. Thanks to this measure, some 55,000 fewer offenders were in custody. They were able to take part in rehabilitation programs.

According to a study on victims of crime and their attitude toward conditional sentencing this type of sentence had several advantages. Among other things, most rehabilitation programs can be more effectively implemented when the offender is in the community rather than in custody.

In my previous work, before I was a member of Parliament, I often dealt with people conditionally sentenced to do community work. This was always a success. Furthermore, most of these people did not go back to prison later.

Prison is no more effective a deterrent than more severe intermediate punishments, such as enhanced probation or home confinement. Keeping offenders in custody is significantly more expensive than supervising them in the community.

The public has become more supportive of community-based sentencing, except for serious crimes of violence. I can understand why. The Bloc Québécois has always been an advocate for victims of serious crimes of violence.

Widespread interest in restorative justice has sparked interest in community-based sanctions. Restorative justice initiatives seek to promote the interests of the victim at all stages of the criminal justice process, but particularly at the sentencing stage.

The virtues of community-based sanctions include the saving of valuable correctional resources and the ability of the offender to continue or seek employment and maintain ties with his or her family. After having been incarcerated in their youth and receiving a prison sentence, it is very difficult for persons to find work when they leave prison when they have no work experience and have problems as a result of a troubled childhood. If, however, they have had access to rehabilitation programs, it is much easier because they have already gained some work experience in the community.

David Paciocco, who is a criminal law professor at the University of Ottawa, said:

It is inconceivable to think that all the offences that lead to a 10-year sentence or more are invariably serious offences in every concrete case.

He added that preventing the use of conditional sentences for all such offences would not only send many people to prison who do not belong there, but it would also likely lead judges and lawyers to find ways to get around the restriction. Judges could increase the requirements in terms of evidence of guilt, while prosecutors could lay less serious charges in order to leave the option of a conditional sentence.

Furthermore, the executive director of the John Howard Society of Saskatchewan, Mike Dunphy, said that 33% of the criminals sentenced to house arrest in 2005 would have ended up in prison under the provisions of Bill C-9. Thus, prisons would need 33% more beds, employees and programs to serve the inmates.

At this time, conditional sentences are often longer than prison sentences. When prisoners are released early on parole, they move freely in the community under conditions that are less rigorous than if they were under house arrest.

Offenders also have a better chance if they are reintegrated into the community by living at home under strict conditions rather than languishing in prisons, exposed to the influence of other criminals. Long periods in prison without other rehabilitation programs tend to increase the risk of recidivism after release.

Moreover, the cost of prolonged incarceration would invariably lead to cuts in social services, educational services and employment opportunities.

The United States punishes its criminals more severely than Canada, yet its crime rate is five times higher than here.

Since the victims of violence are always at the core of our concerns and given that the Bloc Québécois has always defended the importance of taking them into consideration, especially when it comes to setting parole conditions, if Bill C-9 had been reasonable and had limited its effect to excluding the more violent crimes that are not already excluded, such as kidnapping a person under age 14, sexual assault with a weapon or aggravated sexual assault, rather than drawing up an arbitrary, endless list of offences, the Bloc Québécois would have undoubtedly supported such a bill. However, in its current form, we will vote against this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleague for expressing her opinion on conditional sentences. I have a specific question for her. In Quebec, there is a huge problem with drunk drivers who cause accidents that kill people. It is a scourge.

Currently, under the conditions that are imposed upon them, some offenders can benefit from a conditional sentence. The amendment we are proposing will eliminate this option or at least will make its use very difficult.

Here is my question. How can my colleague explain the fact that she is against this bill? Not only drunk drivers who hit and kill someone can benefit from a conditional sentence—meaning that they will be serving their sentence at home—but, in Quebec, they have the privilege of receiving 90% of their salary. Indeed, during that period, if they are injured and cannot work, they will be receiving money. Not only do they serve their sentence at home, but they are paid.

I am asking my colleague to explain to me why she is against this bill.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns. I also understand the helplessness one can feel when dealing with such situations. However, judges have always shown their competence in sentencing.

We must also recognize that some accidents happen without alcohol being involved; they are caused by speeding and other factors. Over the last few years, contrary to what my colleague is claiming, there has been a significant decline in the number of accidents caused by excessive drinking, thanks to the great wisdom shown by the Government of Quebec and to Éduc'alcool, that put in place very interesting programs to educate young people about the problems related to excessive drinking.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for yet another thoughtful intervention in this place. She always manages to do that.

I was very interested to hear her talk about the economics of this bill and the costs associated with it. When I spoke earlier today, I talked as well about the increased cost of incarcerating people, the increased cost to the provinces of incarcerating people, and how I would rather see that money go into crime prevention programs.

Quebec has been a real leader in crime prevention programs. Many years ago Quebec undertook to put money into that kind of process rather than into incarcerating, especially youth who commit crimes. I wonder if the member could comment on that program in Quebec and generally on what the $250 million, which some estimates are that this will cost the provinces, might be better spent on to prevent crime in the first place.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Indeed what we have seen in Quebec is a success story thanks to the various reintegration and rehabilitation programs that have been put in place for young people. In fact, we believe that when young people get in trouble with the law, it is often because they come from a very difficult background created by poverty.

Therefore, if there is one problem that should be dealt with here, it is poverty. It is the cause of most crimes committed by young people as well as by adults. If people had enough money for food and housing, if they had access to adequate housing, they would be a lot prouder and would not be so much inclined to commit various types of crimes.

In Quebec, we made a point of putting in place adequate programs to help young people who have taken a wrong turn to get back on the right track, so to speak. I do believe that government funds would be put to a much better use if they were used to fund similar programs in the other provinces.