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

This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.

Sponsor

Vic Toews  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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.

Similar bills

C-70 (38th Parliament, 1st session) An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment)

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-9s:

C-9 (2021) Law An Act to amend the Judges Act
C-9 (2020) Law An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Canada Emergency Rent Subsidy and Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy)
C-9 (2020) An Act to amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act
C-9 (2016) Law Appropriation Act No. 1, 2016-17

Votes

Nov. 1, 2006 Failed That Bill C-9, in Clause 1, be amended (a) by replacing lines 6 to 13 on page 1 with the following: “742.1 (1) If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence” (b) by adding after line 25 on page 1 the following: “(2) Despite subsection (1), the court shall not order that an offender serve the sentence in the community if the offender is convicted of any of the following offences: ( a) an offence punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment; ( b) an offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is fourteen years or more; and( c) any of the following offences, if prosecuted by way of indictment and punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years:(i) a terrorism offence, (ii) a criminal organization offence, (iii) an offence under any of the following provisions: (A) section 83.231 (hoax — terrorist activity), (B) subsection 88(1) (possession of weapon for dangerous purpose), (C) section 144 (prison breach), (D) section 160 (bestiality, compelling, in presence of or by child), (E) subsection 212(1) (procuring), (F) section 221 (causing bodily harm by criminal negligence), (G) subsection 249(3) (dangerous operation causing bodily harm), (H) subsection 252(1.2) (offence involving bodily harm), (I) subsection 255(2) (impaired driving causing bodily harm), (J) section 264 (criminal harassment), (K) section 267 (assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm), (L) section 271 (sexual assault), (M) section 279 (kidnapping, forcible confinement), (N) section 279.02 (trafficking in persons — material benefit), (O) section 281 (abduction of person under 14), (P) section 282 (abduction in contravention of custody order), (Q) section 283 (abduction), (R) paragraph 334( a) (theft),(S) subsections 342(1) and (3) (theft, forgery of credit card, unauthorized use of credit card data), (T) paragraph 348(1)( e) (breaking and entering with intent, committing offence or breaking out),(U) section 349 (being unlawfully in dwelling-house), (V) section 354 (possession of property obtained by crime), (W) section 382 (fraudulent manipulation of stock exchange transactions), (X) subsection 382.1(1) (prohibited insider trading), (Y) section 396 (offences in relation to mines), (Z) section 400 (false prospectus), (Z.1) section 403 (personation with intent), (Z.2) section 424.1 (threat against United Nations or associated personnel), (Z.3) section 435 (arson for fraudulent purpose), and (Z.4) section 465 (conspiracy), (iv) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Criminal Code, chapter C-34 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, as they read immediately before January 4, 1983: (A) section 145 (attempt to commit rape), and (B) section 156 (indecent assault on male), (v) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:(A) section 5 (trafficking), (B) section 6 (importing and exporting), and (C) section 7 (production), (vi) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, as they read immediately before the coming into force of section 64 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:(A) section 39 (trafficking in controlled drugs), (B) section 44.2 (possession of property obtained by trafficking in controlled drugs), (C) section 44.3 (laundering proceeds of trafficking in controlled drugs), (D) section 48 (trafficking in restricted drugs), (E) section 50.2 (possession of property obtained by trafficking in restricted drugs), and (F) section 50.3 (laundering proceeds of trafficking in restricted drugs), and (vii) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Narcotic Control Act, as they read immediately before the coming into force of section 64 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act:(A) section 19.1 (possession of property obtained by certain offences), and (B) section 19.2 (laundering proceeds of certain offences).”
June 6, 2006 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, was the person on a conditional sentence? The particular case that the member is describing is not related exactly to the bill.

The purpose for which the previous government brought forward Bill C-70 and the reason that I am supporting some small parts of Bill C-9 is for the reason that the member said, that there are some situations where incarceration for the protection of the public is absolutely essential. However there are many success stories. I hope a number of those success stories will be told when the bill goes to committee.

The sixth reason that the bill would make Canada more dangerous is that it probably would take a quarter of a billion dollars from the justice system just to incarcerate the number of people the justice minister mentioned. This money could be used for police and for better treatment. There is not enough money for treatment to stop re-offenders, to treat substance abuse or anger management.

The seventh reason is that there would be more people in our jails. I have visited jails and there is not enough treatment for all the reasons I have mentioned. I believe criminals would come out even more dangerous.

The eighth reason is that a number of kids and first time offenders would go to jail and come out hardened criminals. Canadians know that is a fact.

The ninth reason is that there would be more aboriginal people in our jails. The system has already shown that it has failed.

The 10th reason is, as I mentioned earlier, that the northern people, in a place such as Nunavut, would be moved far from their families. Of the 475 crimes in Nunavut, 200 were given conditional sentences. These people would now spend time in jail. They were certainly not all violent crimes.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have one quick question for my hon. colleague given his remarks.

Am I led to understand that the member for Yukon is stating to not only his constituents, but to Canadians, that he believes that someone who commits murder, sexual assault, rape and pedophilia, those types of serious offences, and is convicted of those crimes should not go to jail?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened, I said that the Liberals had Bill C-70, which the Conservatives would not allow to come before the House because they forced an election, which would have covered those types of violent crimes. It would have covered terrorist crimes, organized crime and definitely people committing those types of crimes, as we said in Bill C-70, should go to jail.

It is a very small number of these 92 crimes. The number of non-violent crimes that the Conservatives are trying to put in Bill C-9 are totally unacceptable to the other three parties. We must remove those crimes from the bill in committee so as not to make Canada a more dangerous place.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE

Mr. Speaker, it has been indicated in the debate that this is a complex issue. I certainly agree that there is room for tightening the system, especially the parole system. However, on the other side of the equation, it is difficult to make a cookie-cutter approach because it does not do any good. A number of principles go into sentencing, whether it be retribution, rehabilitation or the protection of the public.

What I would like to see in the debate is empirical evidence of what, according to the research, works or what does not work. A number of studies have been cited by the Minister of Justice but when we read the studies they clearly indicate that this does not work.

Is my learned friend aware of any studies or empirical evidence that would help parliamentarians on this most difficult issue?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The evidence shows that in a broad number of cases involving non-violent crimes, increasing minimum sentences and taking away conditional sentences does not work. Research will show this overwhelmingly in committee and we will have to wonder why this archaic bill and Bill C-10 would propose such things.

To protect women in the north who have approached me about cases of sexual assault, we want prohibitions on these types of violent crimes.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

Is the House ready for the question?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Call in the members.

Criminal CodeGovernment Orders

June 5th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

An hon. member

Mr. Speaker, I request that the vote be deferred until tomorrow.