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.

[Jane Griffiths, President, Board of Directors, Church Council on Justice and Corrections]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.

I'm speaking here today as one representative of the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, which is a national coalition of eleven Christian denominations with multi-faith and other community partners. It is well known as an NGO in the criminal justice field, nationally and internationally, for its work since 1974 to bring public attention to more socially responsible approaches to crime and justice. Recent council activities have included educational conferences, supporting local community restorative justice projects, analyzing public policy, and partnering with the arts community in public education about justice.

CCJC was created by eleven founding churches: the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Religious Society of Friends--the Quakers, the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army, the United Church of Canada, of which I am a minister, the Anglican Church of Canada, Canadian Baptist Ministries--we have a representative from them today as well--Christian Reformed Churches, Disciples of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran, and the Mennonite Central Committee.

We realize that our own faith tradition has had some negative influence in fostering a culture of justice and legal institutions that have been steeped in retribution in ways that have worked to further marginalize often some of the most vulnerable citizens of our Canadian communities. We take responsibility for helping to undo the harm this has done.

Our primary mandate is to assist our own faith constituencies to reflect upon this and to become aware of the people in their midst who are suffering from the causes and effects of crime and the fear of crime. Our educational resources encourage citizens to reach out to each other with responses and services that can help us all come to grips with the evil of crime when it happens, to survive and to heal, to discover that life can still be good and worth living, and that we can learn better ways to live together in safety and peace.

The focus of CCJC are the human realities that people in our communities are struggling with related to crime, its causes and effects, and the repercussions of how our legal system, the justice system, and society generally deal with crime. We do not expect our legal system alone to be able to do this for us. The job of justice is also a community responsibility, reaching far beyond what any law or justice system of the state can accomplish.

Long years of experience have taught us that how the state carries out its responsibilities, the laws it enacts, the financial resources it allocates, and the public statements it makes can either assist community effort or undo community initiatives by giving the problems of crime a twist for the worst. It will either assist efforts based on sound evidence to transform attitudes and criminal justice practices or perpetuate prejudices and understandings of the true realities of crime. This is what we wish to discuss with you today.

We believe that the changes in law that these two bills are proposing will make what is already a bad situation even worse. There are other, better ways to remedy the concerns that these bills seek to address. We would all be safer if the resources that would be needed to support the implementation of these unhelpful changes were put toward some of the effective new approaches that have emerged in recent years.

Our book, Satisfying Justice, has documented over 100 of these initiatives. One example is the collaborative justice program, which is here in Ottawa in the courthouse. We have representatives here today, Tiffani Murray and Kim Mann.

The proposed legislation will severely restrict the ability of judges to make use of these programs. We want to take our time with you to explain why we have come to the conclusion that the proposals in Bill C-9 and Bill C-10 would not contribute to better justice for our communities and would make things worse.

The distress of Canadians, the trauma and anguish and fear of crime, is a very compelling force. We are all united in our desire to make changes that will make Canada a safer place to live, and the key challenge is to know what will bring the desired results. It may seem that all that is required would be a simple shifting of words here and there--more time for more crime. We believe, however, that what is being proposed is bound to lead to many unintended consequences, consequences that have been unforeseen because the changes proposed are not strategic in any informed way. Our purpose here today is to bridge the two realities: the words, and the human realities that will be impacted by these words.

We urge you to vote not on the words in a battle of rhetoric taken in a vacuum, but with a meaningful reference to their impact on people's real lives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Art Hanger]

I call to order the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the orders of the day, we're still in debate on Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code, conditional sentence of imprisonment.

We have a number of witnesses before the committee. From the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, we have Ms. Berzins and Ms. Griffiths. We have one individual, Professor David Paciocco from the University of Ottawa. From the Mennonite Central Committee, we have Mr. James Loewen. As well, Rosalind Prober is here from Beyond Borders; I would call them a special interest group in the sense that they are representing the victims and would like to see changes in legislation in various areas.

Thank you to all for being here today.

I'm going to follow the order in which the witnesses are listed on the agenda, which means we will start with the Church Council on Justice and Corrections.

If you could keep your comments to approximately ten minutes, that would get us through all of the presentations and allow a lengthy examination by the committee members.

Begin, if you would.

Criminal Code

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

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first intervention in the House since the election campaign in New Brunswick, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Liberal government in New Brunswick and Premier designate, Shawn Graham, and his team.

As partners, we will represent New Brunswick in a new era of relations between the three levels of government.

It is my pleasure today to speak on Bill C-19. It is another one of the bills presented by the new Conservative government.

Once again, with the introduction of this proposed legislation, the Minister of Justice does not address the real issue. While he and his government might be playing to another audience, an audience in large municipal centres of rich population, dense population and voters who did not support the government, they are playing to the issues that affect people very much. While the purported message in the bill is to prevent crime and keep communities safe, the real objective of the bill, like all other bills the Minister of Justice has led through the House, is political gain.

Like the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh said earlier, we must look at the issues involved and the real merits of the bill and compare it to other bills, which have been presented in Parliament's past, to give a good review of where we want to go. I submit that this matter be sent to committee for procedural as well as substantive review.

The real issue is the saving of lives before lives are put in danger. Instead of investing time and energy into creating new offences that have a catchy title, such as is the case with Bill C-19, we as a responsible nation and as responsible parliamentarians need to invest in prevention and education to prevent street racing from happening, rather than dealing just with the victims and deaths once street racing has occurred.

It occurred to me that this would be an appropriate time to bring forward the fact that, under the public safety and emergency preparedness cuts of last week, the RCMP cut from its budget $4.6 million to do with the elimination of drug impaired driving programs through its training budget. It seems remarkable to me that on the one hand the government is suggesting our streets will be safer. On the other hand, it takes money away from a program that would have made the streets safer.

I am proud of the fact that Mothers Against Drunk Driving is a Canada-wide organization. It has probably met with every member of Parliament. It is very focused. I am very proud that the president of MADD currently is a resident of New Brunswick. It would not be particularly pleased that the first focus of the government, when it comes to driving offences, is street racing. For some time, it has been lobbying for measures such as those cut in the recent budget. It would like to see the penalties meted out to drunk driving offences, which have a long history in the Criminal Code, as severe as those for street racing violations, and they are not under this bill.

We can all agree that street racing is a dangerous activity and has no place in Canadian communities. I am tired of other parties in the House being castigated with the brush, that we are not for the protection of our citizens. I make a non-partisan statement that every member of the House is for public safety and safety in our streets. We will differ on how to get there. My remarks are about that.

How to address this problem is the real issue. The Minister of Justice believes that by creating a new series of offences that reference the existing Criminal Code offences, we will have a panacea. Because it is called a street racing bill, I am very concerned that members of the public will now think it will eradicate street racing. Nothing can be further from the truth.

The truth is there are in existence a number of harsh and severe offences, which have to be meted out by the justices and for which this very Minister of Justice has absolutely no respect. The Minister of Justice has showed that he does not even know how judges get appointed. He has to know what colour they are in political allegiance, but he has no idea how they get appointed. He has shown so little respect for judges and their discretion that he has held up a long overdue pay increase to them. He has criticized judges as Liberal judges. Today he might have argued that judges have no political stripes. We are waiting for a lot of answers from the Minister of Justice on his view and his level of respect for the judiciary of our country.

Clearly, by these amendments, he has no respect for judicial discretion. This is in a long line of bills that the government has presented. I am not sure the minister has read them all but they all represent one thing: no discretion to be left in the hands of judges, who are probably all Liberal judges, but of course that will gradually change appointment by appointment. The minister has no respect for the discretion of these judges. That is the case with this bill as well. It would take away discretion.

Mr. Speaker, unlike my hon. friend, I am used to the courtroom and there is decorum in a courtroom.

This bill, like Bill C-9 and Bill C-10, takes away the discretion that judges have and instead of sculpting what could be taken from the late Chuck Cadman's bill and Bill C-65 as presented, where these factors would be taken into account on sentencing, the Minister of Justice, in his marquee cinema like world, wants to name something and pretend that all citizens of Canada will now be safe from street racing. However, that is not the case. The bill, on a technical aspect, would further cloud some issues by creating these new offences.

The definition of street racing itself has been talked about so I will eliminate that from my speech. It is something that can be cleaned up at committee. As members have said, the definition as it relates to at least one other motor vehicle can be made to make sense because there are races that include only one vehicle.

There are also problems with the definition of “public place”. While the bill is primarily oriented toward an urban environment, the Minister of Justice and members of the House will know, whether or not they are lawyers, that public places and motor vehicles have been defined and they may include snowmobiles on icy surfaces of lakes in rural Canada. This may be of concern as we go forward in looking at this bill.

On the solo race, the race against time and against oneself, the bill does not address that behaviour. This may be more dangerous than the actual one-on-one racing that occurs in some municipalities.

Bill C-19 creates another confusion. There is a lot of confusion in every Conservative bill because the Conservatives are in a hurry to leave a strong impression in Canada. It has been well established in law that objectively the offence of dangerous driving is not as serious as criminal negligence. However, this bill establishes an identical system of imprisonment for both offences. That does not make much sense.

It is respectfully submitted that the proper approach to deal with this dangerous conduct is simply to make street racing a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing.

I heard talk in the House about whether people need to be lawyers but surely they do not. They need to have good sense. However, it does mean that the lawyers in this House need to have common sense too. It does not excuse the lawyers from the requirement for good common sense. The good common sense from having street racing as a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing means that while we trust judges, and on this side of the House we do, to make proper decisions, we are saying by way of public statement that they shall consider street racing, when it is present, as an aggravating factor. This would remove the issue of having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a street race has occurred.

One could imagine, in very serious circumstances, that the lawyers would spend most of their fighting over the definition of street racing because it has not been provided in the bill. The hon. Minister of Justice says that there is a lot of common law on this but common law on racing in Canada would probably be more tuned to horse racing than street racing because Canada has not had a law on street racing, which leaves it as a dog's breakfast. We probably have a whole bunch of Liberal lawyers trying to figure it out.

Instead, we would like some Liberal legislators to make it inevitable that we will not need to deal with the definition of street racing. The Minister of Justice and his cohorts can still go out on the bandstands and say that they have cured the issue but the technical aspect is that aggravating factor in sentencing would ensure the judge is just dealing with whether he thinks there was a race, whether there was dangerous operation of a motor vehicle or whether there was criminal negligence. Those are the standards that have been used. Those terms have meaning in law. They have been considered in cases. Those are judicial decisions that judges write.

This would remove the issue of having to deal with street racing, which has not been defined, just as the Liberal's Bill C-65 and, as I said before, private member's Bill C-230, proposed by the late Chuck Cadman, proposed to deal with this. I think it is the right way to go. Preferably we will deal with it in committee and, if not, by amendment at third reading stage.

It is suggested that by providing a mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing, the message to the public will be as serious as the marquee name “street racing” and the message would be heard loud and clear. It would be easier at a sentence hearing to argue that the aggravating factors existed.

Members will note in the material supplied by the Library of Parliament that a number of the cases showed that there were other aggravating factors, not mitigating factors. The Minister of Justice likes to speak about mitigating factors, the people who got off because of circumstances. We have had plenty of cases where there are multiple increased aggravating factors, such as the use of alcohol, criminal gang activity and lack of remorse. These are aggravating factors that can be combined with the mandatory aggravating factor in sentencing that was in place in Bill C-65.

The difference between a dangerous driving offence and a dangerous driving offence involving a race will be a dog's breakfast before the courts. I think we need to be careful that, while we agree on a goal, which is keeping the streets safer, we give, not only the judges but prosecutors, the tools they need to succeed in getting convictions and not give them loopholes with undefined terms, all for the purpose of political gain.

The bill would increase the available maximum prison terms. Once again, it is a well-established legal principle that the maximum sentence is usually reserved for the worst offender in the worst case. This might give people who are very concerned about street racing offences the false impression that every street racing offence will be charged under a maximum or asked for by charging the maximum.

We know that there are summary conviction methods of proceeding here, which give prosecutors discretion in the way they wish to proceed. We also know that maximum terms are not meted out that frequently.

It is important to tell the truth to the Canadian public, that even this bill, in its form, does not guarantee that every street racing offender will get 10 or 14 years. It is time to be real with the Canadian public. The bill would provide for mandatory orders of prohibition from driving.

At this time I would like to mention again the spectre of MADD. Mothers Against Drunk Driving might very well be at our doors next week or the week after, should we move this on or pass it relatively quickly, to ask where the tough mandatory orders of prohibitions are for longer periods on continued, excessive and repetitive drunk driving offences. The bill is harsher than those infractions are and those infractions were built up over a long period of time.

Though it should be easy to support this initiative with respect to the mandatory orders of prohibition, the manner in which it is addressed is inadequate, specifically when dealing with repeat offenders.

It is important to know the distinction between dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. Let us take ourselves to a situation in an area not unlike the area that my friend from Fundy Royal represents, a countryside where there is a known repeat offender with respect to racing. This person is dangerous to the public and to himself or herself. The person is convicted the first time of dangerous driving because the prosecutor and the police, in that case the rural RCMP, say that this will show that person and this will be a deterrent. Hopefully that person is meted out the proper sentence and the proper time is served.

On the second conviction, the police might very well charge that person, because it is a repeat offence, with criminal negligence causing bodily harm. In both cases there could be bodily harm, the same modus operandi, the same facts, but the police authorities and the prosecutor have said that, for deterrent's sake, they must charge the person with the worse offence because the person will get more time.

Under this bill as drafted, and I hope we can sort this out at committee, I submit that the repeat offence will not be caught by the mandatory prohibitions and the longer sentences. The reason is that the definition of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, if amended, with or without a street race, is not a repeat if it is charged under criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

These definitions and these legal words certainly have to be worked out at the committee level but there is more than that. It is not good enough for the chief law officer of this nation to sign off on a bill for which homework has yet to be done. It is not fair enough to say that we can fix this at committee. It is a trend. It is trend of the government to present ill-conceived, ill-drafted, hasty and sensational bills to this House, known more for their titles than their substance, and expect the hard-working members of the committee to set it all right.

If I could send one message to the government members it would be that they read the bills, consider them and consider that the Criminal Code of Canada is holistic, it is organic and it should be taken in this context.

When a person is charged with criminal negligence and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, it begs the question of whether this is a repeat offender. Is the criminal negligence a second offence? We would not know. The bill fails to answer those questions. I can tell members that every doubt will be cast in favour of the accused in our courtrooms, as they are constituted.

Many if not all studies have shown that there is no link between more severe, longer and harsher sentences and the diminution of crime rates. While I, as a member of society, might be very willing to go with the government on longer sentences and try the principle of sentence that says deterrence is important, I would need to know and I would need to be able to tell my constituents that it will work, that the thrill-seeking street racer will be deterred by a harsher sentence.

It goes back to our first point. Through education or funding in law enforcement and more cooperation with the provincial law authorities, I think more could be done than just simply getting it out on the five o'clock news that we will cure street racing now because we have a three page bill. That is not good enough.

If the minister uses the word “holistic”, then let us put it into action. Let us work together to make sure that as Nicholson, Rob he convenes meetings with provincial attorneys general and that he sees the good work being done in cities like San Diego and Los Angeles and, if I may for local advertisement, the city of Moncton in enforcing its bylaws, in preventing drive-throughs, and in preventing people from circling certain locations on a habitual basis.

Let us work together with these various levels of government, because the cities and municipalities in this country are the third order of government, and let us try to make a better bill that would save the government money, but more important, would save lives.

Bill C-19 would create a new offence punishing people for street racing just as they are already being punished now for street racing. This is already covered in the current Criminal Code. This bill would allow us to arrest people only after they have put other people's lives at risk. We have to look at the big picture. We have to work with other members of other governments to make sure that we make a better law.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, street racing. I urge all hon. members to support this bill, a bill that undoubtedly conveys the importance this government places on ensuring that our communities and streets are safe.

Street racing is a serious crime. Its consequences are equally serious. Street racing is killing and seriously injuring innocent people and is placing all road users and citizens at risk. It has been pursued in communities across our country, in Toronto, Vancouver, Regina and Saskatoon, to name only a few. This government will not stand idly by and allow it to continue.

Indeed, the consequences of inaction on this issue are stark. Our streets will become racetracks and our communities will be at risk. This government is committed to ensuring that we have safe streets and this bill will contribute to that.

In talking about Bill C-19, I would be remiss if I failed to mention the important work of our late colleague and my friend, Chuck Cadman, work which was driven in large part out of a deeply held sense of justice. He believed that our lawmakers and our laws should work to ensure that our communities are safe and that those who would threaten our safety through criminal acts should be held accountable. With this purpose in mind, Chuck introduced Bill C-338 and then Bill C-230.

While Bill C-19 would deal with street racing differently than the amendments proposed by Chuck would have, our goal remains the same, namely, to ensure that our streets are safe. It is in this light that I am proud to be able to speak today on Bill C-19, for I believe that Bill C-19 is about ensuring that individuals who commit serious crimes should be punished in a manner that reflects that seriousness.

Bill C-19 is very much about public safety. Currently, there is no specific offence of street racing in the Criminal Code. Rather, persons who currently engage in street racing could be charged under existing offences such as dangerous driving or criminal negligence. Bill C-19 proposes to create a new offence of street racing. In my opinion, this is important, because it appropriately signals the disdain that we as Canadians feel toward this reckless and dangerous crime. It demonstrates that we will not tolerate this reckless disregard for the safety of others in our community.

Bill C-19 would define street racing to mean “operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place”. The offence of street racing would operate by referencing already existing Criminal Code offences, namely, dangerous driving, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death.

What this means in practical terms is that in street racing situations when a person commits one of the offences I have just listed, the punishments available to them will be tailored to appropriately reflect the unique nature of the crime. The punishment will fit the crime.

There will be tougher penalties than those currently available under our criminal laws. This is consistent with our larger objective of ensuring that the criminal justice system is tough on crime. We will no longer tolerate a justice system that is soft on criminals at the expense of public safety.

In addition, a person convicted of the street racing offence would be subject to a mandatory minimum driving prohibition. Those who choose to treat our city streets and roads as racetracks for their own pleasure, placing the lives of innocent citizens at risk, will have to face the consequences of such careless behaviour.

I would like to add a personal note. When I was a much younger woman, I used to drive a stock car. In fact, I actually did quite well. I think I was the only woman ever to pull a tire off on a quarter-mile dirt track, so members will know I was doing pretty well with our super D stockers. I also have a nephew who has a CASCAR and drives the race circuit in western Canada and the northern United States. Members will know, then, that our family loves speed.

However, I do think there is a place for speed. I think that if young people want to race they should be on a racetrack or a community stock car track of some kind, right across the country. The key to this point that I just mentioned is that I did it at a proper facility. This was as much for my own safety as it was for others'. I obviously have nothing against racing. I love it. I am addicted to the sport. I love the sport, but it must be done when and where it is safe for all involved.

Canadians do not want to see those who have been convicted of a serious street racing crime back behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. My son-in-law, the police officer, most definitely does not. These penalties send a clear, strong message, one that I support.

Currently, a person who is convicted of dangerous driving can face the maximum penalty on indictment of five years' imprisonment. Bill C-19 would retain this penalty in relation to street racing. It would, however, impose for the first offence a mandatory minimum driving prohibition of one year. In addition, the sentencing court would retain discretion to impose a driving prohibition of up to three years and the penalties would go up on each subsequent offence. For a second conviction of dangerous driving while street racing, the mandatory minimum driving prohibition would increase to two years. The court retains discretion to prohibit the operation of a motor vehicle for up to five years.

Beyond two convictions of dangerous driving while street racing, a sentencing court would be required to impose a mandatory three year driving prohibition but would have discretion to impose a maximum lifetime prohibition. This discretion ensures that the courts are able to deal with each instance appropriately and individually.

Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right. Those who would continue to abuse that privilege and place others at risk of serious harm or death should not be entitled to drive. For the more serious street racing offences, Bill C-19 proposes stringent penalties.

This government made a commitment to make our communities and streets safe and to ensure that the criminal law is strengthened so our laws accurately reflect the significant and lasting impact crime can have on our communities. This government is living up to its commitment. Those who are convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm or criminal negligence causing bodily harm in street racing situations will face stiff penalties.

Bill C-19 proposes to increase the maximum penalty available to those convicted of this type of behaviour from 10 to 14 years' imprisonment. Similarly, it would also impose mandatory minimum driving prohibitions for those who commit the most serious offences. For dangerous driving causing death or criminal negligence causing death in street racing situations, the maximum penalty will be life imprisonment. This is a significant increase from the penalty of 14 years currently available for this conduct in our criminal laws. Indeed, life imprisonment is the most stringent penalty our criminal law provides for. This reflects the severity of the crime, its negative impact on society and the seriousness for which our government views this.

This government believes that Canadians deserve safe streets. Bill C-19 is one of many important bills currently before Parliament which will ensure that our communities remain safe.

For example, as it is currently formulated, Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), would prevent the use of conditional sentences in serious crimes. Serious criminals must be held accountable. These changes to the criminal justice system will ensure that.

The amendments proposed by Bill C-9 are pertinent to street racing as well. In those cases where street racing causes injury or death to another person, a conditional sentence or permitting the offender to serve his or her sentence in the community would not be permitted. This makes sense. A person who commits a serious crime, and let us make no mistake, causing death or injury to someone as a result of street racing is of the utmost seriousness, should not be able to serve his or her sentence in the community.

I should pause for a moment to note that Bill C-19 is not about criminalizing legitimate racing activities nor is it about criminalizing motor enthusiasts. What Bill C-19 is about is ensuring that dangerous and irresponsible street racing is recognized in the Criminal Code for what it is: a serious crime that will not be tolerated.

The Criminal Code amendments proposed in Bill C-19 to address street racing go beyond tougher penalties for this crime. Rather, they speak more fundamentally to the values we hold so dear in Canadian society and the values we wish to live by. Canadians can rightly stand with pride. Canadians live in and contribute to a society that is envied the world over. Our country is known to be safe, just and law-abiding.

Canadians want safe communities. They want to feel secure in knowing that when they leave their homes, whether it is to go for a walk, to drive to work or to celebrate important events with friends and family, they and their loved ones will be safe.

Canadians want laws that work to ensure safety. They should demand nothing less of their government.We, as their elected representatives, have no greater duty than that of ensuring that our laws reflect these values. We must respond to these demands in a measured and responsible way. We have an immense responsibility to ensure that our laws continue to ensure that our communities will be safe for our citizens.

Indeed, as the Minister of Justice has noted, “there is no task more important to any government than the protection of its citizens”. I believe this is true, and our government takes this task very seriously. Bill C-19 will make our streets safer.

Of course we know that strong laws will not curb crime on their own. That is why our government continues to pursue a broad range of measures, legislative and otherwise, to ensure that our communities are safe. For example, we have pledged $20 million over two years to focus on crime prevention activities, including strategies to reduce youth crime. This money will enable us to partner across Canada at the local level to work with at risk youth and thereby prevent crime before it happens.

While we do not have comprehensive statistics on street racing crime, including how often it is occurring and by whom, we do know that it is often caused by young persons. Our government's efforts to better respond to youth crime will also make a difference. Bill C-19 would indirectly enable us to keep better track of who commits these crimes and how often. The proposed provisions will provide a more systematic and comprehensive ability to track street racing offences.

Our government is also committed to strengthening the ability of law enforcement to respond to crime. Good laws are effective only if we have strong police forces across this country to enforce them. I wish to acknowledge the important work being done by law enforcement agencies across this country in combating crime in all forms.

For example, in the greater Toronto area, Project ERASE, which stands for “Eliminate Racing Activity on Streets Everywhere”, works to reduce street racing through the collaboration of multiple police forces. These policing agencies work to reduce street racing through a combination of awareness and strategic enforcement. Bill C-19 would strengthen the ability of law enforcement to move more effectively and respond more quickly to street racing.

In addition, this government has committed to investing nearly $200 million over the next two years to strengthen the capabilities of the RCMP, who are called upon day in and day out to perform many dangerous tasks with the goal of keeping our communities safe. This commitment to our officers will ensure they have the resources needed to perform their jobs.

Strong laws are important, but we must not forget the important role that law enforcement plays in ensuring that they are effective. This government is making certain that law enforcement forces do have the necessary tools to do their jobs. It is a combination of targeted legislative amendments and broader measures to support crime prevention in our country that this government believes will lead to a safer and more secure Canada.

The government is committed to tackling crime by working with our partners at the provincial and territorial level as well. Bill C-19 will complement existing provincial and territorial laws that have been enacted by legislatures across the country to respond to street racing.

Measures used have included fines, vehicle impoundment and licence suspensions. Taken together, these measures provide our law enforcement officers across the country with an effective range of tools to curb this practice. Bill C-19 enhances these tools.

In short, street racing threatens lives and undermines public safety. Bill C-19 would clearly and strongly denounce this crime. It would provide increased accountability for those who engage in it and it would help preserve the kind of Canada that we all expect, one where people can feel safe walking down their streets.

I urge all members in the House to join with me and strongly support the quick passage of this law.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19. As we have already heard in this House, this bill addresses a marginal yet important phenomenon, namely, street racing on public roads, streets and highways. This problem is very worrisome. According to statistics provided by the Library of Parliament, since 1999, 35 people in the greater Toronto area have died as a result of this practice.

Furthermore, in the course of this year, which is drawing to a close, there have already been approximately ten people who have unfortunately lost their lives because of this practice. I do not know what drives people to engage in street racing. Are they seeking thrills? Are betting, material gain or jackpots involved?

The government certainly has reason to be concerned. I have been a member in this House since 1993 and I remember very well the work of the hon. member from British Columbia who, sadly, has since passed away. That member introduced a bill in this House on three separate occasions. I understand that he became aware of this issue as the result of a tragedy in his own life, since he lost his own son in an incident involving street racing. I am referring of course to our late colleague, Mr. Cadman.

The Bloc Québécois therefore supports this bill's referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Of course, it still needs some work, but we agree with the principle that the Criminal Code should be amended to add a distinct offence to punish those who engage in street racing, especially in urban areas. This bill is somewhat different from the bill introduced by the previous government, since the previous bill proposed the use of all provisions in the Criminal Code concerning dangerous driving or criminal negligence to make street racing an aggravating factor.

With respect to the principles of sentencing set out in section 718 of the Criminal Code, there are aggravating factors in cases where, for example, someone commits a crime, infraction or assault by intentionally beating someone up because of their sexual orientation. If we interpret section 718 of the Criminal Code correctly, a judge would have to take this principle into account when sentencing.

According to section 718 of the Criminal Code, the principle of proportionality must apply in all cases. Clearly, a person who commits a horrific, violent crime that causes death cannot receive the same punishment as a 15-year-old who steals something for the first time. Clearly, the principle of proportionality is central to section 718 of the Criminal Code. Mr. Speaker, you practised criminal law, so you must be familiar with these concepts.

The Bloc Québécois agrees that the bill before us should be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This bill does not take aggravating factors into account. The bill focuses on five infractions that already exist, redefining them and assigning specific penalties when they are committed in a street racing context. I would like to list these infractions to ensure we all understand. Bill C-19 says that dangerous driving that does not cause bodily harm, as set out in section 249.4 of the Criminal Code, when in a street racing context, must be subject to a specific charge.

A second new offence is created. Dangerous driving causing bodily harm—when someone injures someone or the car hits another car and causes injury—which is covered by subsection 249.4(3) of the Criminal Code, will give rise to a separate charge when street racing is involved.

There is a third offence. The punishment for dangerous driving causing death, which is obviously more serious, will be much more severe and can go up to life in prison. This is the third separate offence created in connection with street racing.

The fourth new offence that is created is criminal negligence causing bodily harm, which is covered by section 249.3 of the Criminal Code. When street racing is involved, this offence would give rise to a separate charge.

The fifth offence is criminal negligence causing death. This is not dangerous driving causing death, but criminal negligence causing death. It is the fifth new offence. It is already covered by section 249 of the Criminal Code and will give rise to a separate charge.

As an aside, hon. members know how prolific this government is when it comes to creating new offences. This government clearly wants to address a number of social problems by creating criminal law. But we must always ask ourselves whether a given problem warrants creating new offences.

In some cases, obviously, we do not agree with this approach. Penalties and sentences already exist. For example, I am very concerned about Bill C-9, which amends section 742 of the Criminal Code. This section was created in 1996, when Canada's current ambassador to the United Nations, Allan Rock, decided that the judiciary would have the option of a new alternate sentence, which was the possibility of serving a sentence in the community, at home. However, very specific conditions that we are all aware of applied to sentences under two years and cases where there were no minimum sentences. Clearly, the judge had to be convinced that the person serving the sentence did not pose a threat to the community.

The member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel knows that this is one case where it is certainly not helpful to take this tool away from the judiciary.

In the case before us, the Bloc Québécois is prepared to engage, in committee, in the serious exercise of considering whether it is appropriate to add specific provisions to the Criminal Code to put an end to the practice of using the public roadways for racing, which, marginal though it is, can have tragic consequences.

I am going to speak a little about the options that will be available to the courts when they sentence people convicted of street racing. Obviously, the entire question of sentencing is a sensitive issue in criminal law. We must know that there are very entrenched schools of thought: the “retributionists” and the “utilitarians”. Some people say that sentences have exemplary value, that they have deterrent powers, and accordingly that the more severe the sentences, the less people are likely to engage in that type of offence. Obviously, that reasoning is not immune to criticism, because it starts from the premise that individuals, ordinary mortals, are familiar with the Criminal Code and therefore with the type of offence and the type of sentence associated with it.

Obviously, we might doubt that this is so.

Some people say that sentences have very limited deterrent powers. It is not so much the sentence that matters, it is the efficacy of the sanction, because people will be arrested by the police and locked up, put in prison. Regardless of what school of thought one belongs to when it comes to sentencing, BillC-19 proposes the following sentences.

Speaking still of street racing, no minimum sentence is provided for dangerous driving that does not cause bodily harm or death—simple dangerous driving—but there is a maximum sentence of five years. When dangerous driving causes bodily harm, the maximum sentence is 14 years.

It is interesting to compare this with the previous bill. This is not a pointless exercise. When the Liberals were in power and Bill C-65 was introduced in this House, for the same offence, the Liberals proposed that there be a maximum prison term of 10 years. The Conservatives had—let us admit it—a more right-wing vision, one that took a more law and order approach, and they wanted the maximum to be 14 years.

When it comes to dangerous driving causing death—an extremely serious offence—nothing more needs to be said about the maximum sentence, which is life in prison. The judge can decide to impose a lesser sentence.

For criminal negligence causing bodily harm, the bill provides for a term of 14 years in prison, while in Bill C-65 the Liberals provided for a term of 10 years.

For criminal negligence causing death—also an offence that is of great concern—the proposal is for life imprisonment.

There are two approaches. The current bill proposes that a specific offence with specific penalties be established. The Liberals had proposed that it be treated as an aggravating circumstance, as per section 778, which must serve as a reference when considering the issue of sentencing. It is never easy in a society to know how to handle these cases. In fact, at the end of their mandate, Brian Mulroney's Conservatives—and this will be a pleasant or unpleasant memory depending on the allegiance—had established a commission of inquiry on sentencing, headed by Mr. Justice Archambault, which had dissected the issue of sentencing. The commission recommended that there be no minimum sentences. Since then, minimum sentences have been introduced for all offences pertaining to impaired driving; there are about forty. Minimum sentences have been added to all pornography offences and offences of a sexual nature.

Another clause of the bill deals with a mandatory order prohibiting individuals found guilty of street racing from operating a motor vehicle. At present, drivers' licences can be suspended. In some cases, the judge does not have the option of suspending the driver's licence of the accused before him. I am thinking of all those cases where an individual is found guilty of having the care of a vehicle or driving while impaired.

In other instances, power was more discretionary. The judge could, according to his or her discretion, order that a driver's licence be revoked for a minimum of one year, for a first offence in particular, for reckless driving causing bodily harm.

In Bill C-19 before us, it would be mandatory to revoke the driver's licence.

I can appreciate the logic, since having a driver's licence is not a constitutional right; it is a privilege. It is only natural for the legislator to provide that a driver's licence holder must exercise the privilege of using a car on the highway with extreme caution, vigilance and prudence.

It will also be possible to revoke driver's licences when people are fined for street racing and judges will be able to give a ruling.

And with every additional crime, the harsher the punishment. I will give you some specific examples. For reckless driving without bodily harm or death the judge can give a ruling at his or her discretion, as I was saying. The government would like to withdraw this discretionary power from the judge. For a first offence, it will be impossible to get a driver's licence for a year; for a second offence the suspension will last at least two years; and a third offence will result in a minimum suspension of three years. Maximums are also added to that.

We understand the logic. I am sure my colleagues understand it. We can agree with this, knowing that it is a matter of context and that judges will have to weigh the evidence accordingly.

For reckless driving causing bodily harm, again the judge will no longer have discretionary power. This discretion is being cut back. Let us be frank, the Conservatives have been using every power at their disposal in every bill presented so far to challenge this prerogative.

Are you indicating that I have one minute left or two, Mr. Speaker?

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

moved that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to lead off the debate on this important government initiative, Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Canadians want a law-abiding peaceful society. They believe in secure streets and neighbourhoods where children can play in safety and where families can go for evening walks. In doing our part to protect our communities, roads and highways, the Government of Canada is taking the issue of street racing head-on.

There have been far too many examples of Canadians being injured or killed because of street racing. On a regular basis there are reports of deaths across the country relating to this dangerous activity. We have seen horrific deaths recently in Toronto, Vancouver, Edmonton and Winnipeg. These risks, injuries and deaths are senseless and do not need to occur.

The criminal law seeks justice, the protection of the public and the establishment and maintenance of social order. Ultimately the purpose of the criminal law is to contribute to a just, peaceful and safe society through the establishment of prohibitions, sanctions and procedures to deal fairly and appropriately with blameworthy conduct that causes or threatens serious harm to individuals and society. Street racers must be explicitly subject to such sanctions and prohibitions.

The criminal law can be, and in this case should be, a tool for shifting public perception. In this regard the message needs to be made clear: street racing is not a game, it is not carefree and it is not harmless. Pure and simple, it kills.

In establishing such a system we must first examine the existing legal scheme on which Bill C-19 would build, namely the way the Criminal Code currently deals with street racing.

The Criminal Codes does not specifically identify street racing as an offence, although certain of the code's offences can apply to fatal and injurious collisions where street racing is involved. These offences are: criminal negligence causing death, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death, which currently carries a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment; criminal negligence causing bodily harm, with a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment; and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, with a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. In addition, the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, with a five year maximum imprisonment on indictment, can be applied in cases where a street race has occurred but no one was killed or injured.

In addition, under the Criminal Code, if convicted of any of those five offences, currently the court may order a period of driving prohibition of up to three years in the case of a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, of up to 10 years in the case of a dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm or death, and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. In the case of criminal negligence causing death, the court may order up to a lifetime driving prohibition.

Despite these existing provisions and the discretionary driving prohibition orders, street races are still occurring and Canadians are still being injured, and tragically, killed.

For this reason the government is doing its part in reinforcing the criminal law in this area and sending a strong clear message that street racing is a crime with real and significant consequences. Creating a separate offence in the Criminal Code will specifically denounce this form of crime. In addition, these proposed amendments permit increased punishments with regard to minimum driving prohibitions and increase periods of imprisonment in street racing situations.

Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (street racing) and to make a consequential amendment to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act proposes the creation of a specific street racing offence in the Criminal Code based on the offences of dangerous driving, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and criminal negligence causing death. The bill proposes key reforms that would increase, in street racing situations, the maximum punishments for dangerous driving causing bodily harm and criminal negligence causing bodily harm from 10 years to 14 years, and for dangerous driving causing death from 14 years to life.

The government is taking a holistic approach to criminal law reform. In this regard, it is significant to note that the government's conditional sentencing bill, Bill C-9, if passed as is, will eliminate the use of a conditional sentence in those street racing cases where someone is either injured or killed. As we know, conditional sentences are essentially house arrest.

The street racing reforms would also provide minimum driving prohibitions that would increase on each subsequent offence, instead of the present discretionary prohibitions. In particular, the mandatory driving prohibitions range from a minimum of one year on a first offence, all the way up to a maximum of a lifetime driving ban. The minimum driving prohibitions increase to two and three years for subsequent offences.

Of note is the proposed mandatory lifetime driving prohibition. This mandatory lifetime minimum driving prohibition will apply if an offender has two convictions, where someone is injured or killed as a result of street racing, and at least one of these offences causes a death. For example, if someone is convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm while street racing and then convicted of criminal negligence causing death while street racing, the lifetime mandatory driving prohibition will apply.

Therefore, Bill C-19 would provide judges with discretion in setting the appropriate length of prohibition, in some cases, all the way up to a lifetime ban, but in every street racing offence, the offender would have a period of mandatory driving prohibition.

Following the introduction of Bill C-19, some have asked, What is street racing and how will the courts interpret such a definition? Clause 1 of the bill defines “street racing” as:

--operating a motor vehicle in a race with at least one other motor vehicle on a street, road, highway or other public place;

The term “race” is an undefined term in the bill and is therefore meant to be applied by the courts, based on existing common law principles, after an examination of the trial evidence. The courts will turn to context in which the term is used, dictionary definitions of a race, as well as Canadian jurisprudence defining this term. At the end of the day, all sources of interpretation generally point to the common theme of a race amounting to a contest of speed, which will be determined on a case by case basis on the evidence presented at trial.

By the structure of the proposed reforms, the prosecution will be required to prove a race; that is a contest of speed plus dangerous driving or criminal negligence. This construction responds to fear that revving one's engine would amount to an offence. The driving must also meet the existing standards of dangerous driving or criminal negligence in order to attract criminal liability.

Furthermore, by the design of the scheme, if the court is not satisfied that a street race was involved, then the law of included offences would apply. Therefore, if the prosecution has not proven a street race but has proven all the essential elements of either dangerous driving or criminal negligence, then the offender may be convicted of these included offences.

It is important to note that the Criminal Code contains an offence, at section 259, prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle while a person is disqualified from driving. This driving while prohibited offence would also apply if a person drives during the prohibition period imposed for the offences in Bill C-19.

Many provinces have used provincial highway traffic legislation to combat street racing, including provincial fines, licence suspensions and vehicle impoundment. In British Columbia, for example, the province introduced legislation that gave the police the authority to impound, immediately, any vehicle used in a street race. In some matters, there can be federal and provincial constitutional authority, and each level of government may properly enact legislation. In the matter of street racing the provincial legislature has constitutional legislative authority to enact highway traffic and driver licensing legislation against street racing. Parliament may enact legislation against street racing, using its constitutional legislative authority for criminal law.

There have been a number of earlier bills directed at combatting street racing. During the 37th Parliament, the late Mr. Chuck Cadman, M.P., introduced private member's Bill C-338 and reintroduced it as Bill C-230 in the 38th Parliament aimed at this form of crime. These bills provided that the existence of street racing was to be an aggravating factor in sentencing and provided for mandatory minimum driving prohibitions, increasing on second and subsequent offences. I think the Prime Minister said it very when he described Mr. Cadman as “a selfless man who devoted his years in Ottawa to fighting for safer streets”.

Mr. Cadman's bill was built upon the existence of a repeat aggravating factor. However, the dependence on the aggravating factor in the sentencing hearing that involves a prior conviction, in order to trigger an increased penalty for a subsequent offence, raised some concerns. First, there is no reference to street racing in the substantive offence. Second, the CPIC, the Canadian Police Information Centre, does not report the existence of aggravating factors. Therefore, the Crown would have no consistent way of knowing that a prior offence had involved street racing.

In the 38th Parliament, the previous government introduced Bill C-65, an act to amend the Criminal Code, street racing. It also provided that street racing, if found by the sentencing judge to be present, was to be used as an aggravating factor in sentencing and included mandatory driving prohibitions, although repeat offenders were not subject to increasing driving prohibitions. All these bills eventually died on the order paper. However, given the efforts made by Mr. Cadman and by the former government's response, we are now counting on everyone to support Bill C-19.

The government's bill, Bill C-19, unlike its predecessors, proposes the creation of separate offences and would increase driving prohibitions for repeat offenders. I believe these are necessary components to deliver the message that street racing threatens the safety of Canadians and criminal law consequences, therefore, will be serious.

The frequency of and the conviction rate for offences involving street racing are presently not available at a national level as there is, currently, no systematic way to identify the cases that have involved street racing. One of the indirect benefits of the reforms proposed in C-19 is that the creation of separate offences will allow such data to be captured and monitored in a systematic national way.

As I have noted, in some matters, and street racing is one such matter, there can be federal and provincial constitutional authority and each level of government may properly enact legislation. The provincial legislature has constitutional legislative authority to enact highway traffic and driver licensing legislation against street racing. Parliament may enact legislation against street racing under its constitutional authority for criminal law.

The complementary provincial and federal tools would provide a strong and effective response to the scourge of street racing on Canadian roads and street. I, therefore, compliment the efforts of local police forces in getting street racers off our streets on to closed race tracks. These efforts will no doubt contribute to public safety on Canadian roads and highways.

Safe streets and safe communities are a hallmark of life in Canada. The government is doing its part, through a number of important bills currently before Parliament, to ensure that this fact remains true. The government has made a clear and unequivocal commitment to work toward a safe and secure Canada. This Canada is one in which its citizens can walk the streets without fear of being struck by reckless street racers.

I conclusion, Bill C-19 is a targeted, measured and balanced response to the numerous tragic incidents of street racing occurring on our roads and highways. Although not in and of itself a panacea, this proposed reform will send a clear message that driving is a privilege and that street races are not acceptable. Bill C-19 would also ensure that those prosecuted for street racing would not be permitted to drive for a significant period of time.

I urge all hon. members to join me in support of Bill C-19 and to work together to put an end to this dangerous phenomena of street racing on Canadian roads and highways.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to close the debate on what I believe is a significant step forward in protecting the rights of children across Canada in order to be safe from sexual predators.

As the sponsor of the bill, I am encouraged by the support the bill has received today. I had hoped that debate on this bill would transcend our partisan differences and for the most part it has. I especially want to thank those members of the opposition parties who have agreed to support the bill at least as far as the committee stage is concerned. For those who have expressed concerns, I respect those perspectives. I am hoping that all members of the House will at least agree to have the bill sent to committee for further review.

There may be some who will ask whether the bill is an overreaction to the problem of child luring. I would respond by looking at the experience in other countries such as Britain, Australia and yes, the United States. When we look at the maximum sentences for child luring in those jurisdictions, we see a range of 12 to 30 years in prison. In some cases the legislation provides for mandatory minimum sentences of five years.

By comparison, Bill C-277 represents a relatively modest increase in the maximum sentence from 5 to 10 years imprisonment. As my colleagues know, our government has also introduced legislation, Bill C-9, which will remove conditional sentences including house arrest where serious crimes are concerned. Increasing the maximum sentence for child luring for sexual purposes makes a clear statement that this is a serious crime and will ensure that sexual predators do not receive house arrest.

Members should also know that of the cases successfully prosecuted under the current child luring law, the large majority of the sentences are for terms ranging between 6 and 18 months, and most of those are conditional sentences to be served in the community.

My heart tells me that the protection of our children is worth much more than that. There is no doubt in my mind that offenders who are so depraved that they would take advantage of a vulnerable young child deserve tough sentences, not a sentence served in the comfort of their homes and communities.

I would invite members of the House to reflect on our fundamental role as members of Parliament. That role is to ensure the safety and security of all Canadians, and to use the utmost diligence in protecting and defending the interests of the most vulnerable in our society. Clearly, young, impressionable children are included in that group. They face growing threats from a rapidly changing world, a world which is becoming increasingly less friendly and safe. More importantly, those who prey on and exploit children are becoming increasingly bold in their attempts to gain access to our children.

In fact, as I stated earlier, many of these predators cannot be treated and will remain a constant threat to our communities for the rest of their lives. It is our job as members of the House to ensure that we do everything within our lawful power to provide our justice system with the legal tools to keep sex predators away from our children. It is very simple. We have a job to do. Let us do it well.

Parents also have a job to do. I encourage parents to listen to and understand their children, inform themselves about parental controls on their child's computer, keep their child's computer in a public place, stay involved and remain vigilant, educate themselves, and understand that the Internet is not as safe as they may have assumed.

Bill C-277 achieves three goals. First, it condemns in the strongest terms the sexual exploitation of our children. Second, it brings the maximum sentence for luring into line with other sexual offences. Third, it ensures that such offenders serve their sentences in jail, not in the comfort of their homes where they continue to have access to the Internet.

The message of the bill is very clear. If people choose to prey on our children, they will pay a significant price. I encourage the members of the House to put aside partisanship and do something significant for our children. At the very least, refer the bill to committee. Our children deserve nothing less.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a member in this place who does not have a great deal of concern about issues that impact children. The cliché is that children are our future, but they, together with seniors--and I suspect people would agree with me--are the most vulnerable in our society because they can be taken advantage of depending on their circumstances.

We really get into a situation where people are now saying that this is even more serious. In fact, I have had a private member's motion that called for more serious penalties for those who abuse a spouse as opposed to committing assault against another person, the reason being that when someone abuses their spouse, they are violating a trust relationship. Therefore, it is an exacerbating circumstance and the penalty should be greater than the penalty for simply getting into a fight with a stranger in a bar and punching him in the nose. There is something different and it is called an exacerbating factor.

I think members would agree that issues to do with harming children is an exacerbating factor. One member even said he did not think current penalties reflect the seriousness of the crime.

A Bloc member spoke about her grandchild and the need to take care of that grandchild to give it the guidance it needs. If something untoward happened to that grandchild and we asked what should be done in terms of the response of the juridical system, the person with the emotional attachment is going to say, “Throw away the key”. The person will say that the individual who harmed that grandchild has absolutely no right to be in our society. That could be the solution to all serious crimes, to just throw away the key. The trouble is that it is not something we can do. I know that this point alone on just throwing away the key when people do bad things would be a very interesting debate in Parliament.

But in our system today, even those who commit the most serious crimes such as first degree murder, punishable by a sentence of 25 years' imprisonment, eventually will be released into society. They will be released with certain conditions, but they will be out of jail. That, in certain circumstances like the Clifford Olson crimes, is totally unacceptable. There are provisions for incarceration for longer periods of time, but in general first degree murderers eventually get back into society.

That is why our judicial system is based on the principle of rehabilitation. It means that if someone in jail for a serious crime admits their crime and takes programs to rehabilitate themselves to reintegrate into society, they may qualify for probation and get out a little earlier. That is only if they behave themselves and take the program. Those who do not want to probably do not even get probation. Many get turned down because they are not sorry for their crimes. They do not realize the seriousness of their crimes or the damage they have caused to society.

I am going to support Bill C-277 at second reading to go to committee. I am going to recommend it to my caucus colleagues because I think that although we have had a very large debate going on in Parliament, very piecemeal, this private member's bill may very well be the proxy for us to start talking about the whole sentencing and judicial model and whether or not we have confidence in our judges and in the courts, and whether we believe that some cases are different from others, even for the same crime. I can give members an example.

For instance, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba surveyed people in their prisons and found that about 50% of them suffered from alcohol related birth defects, fetal alcohol syndrome. It is a mental illness. Rehabilitation is not applicable to them, but they are in jail. Why are they in jail? They committed crimes, but they did not know the difference between right and wrong. Should they get the same penalty? Should they be in the same system where rehabilitation is what we do? Probably not. They should probably be in appropriate institutions to help them learn how to cope with their disability and their mental health.

The courts have taken a greater latitude in looking at each case individually to find out whether there are exacerbating or in fact mitigating circumstances. I do not believe the latitude can be taken away from the courts and judges to be able to determine whether there are exacerbating or mitigating factors.

This bill, although it is very simple in saying to just increase the penalties from 5 to 10 years, is quite straightforward, but the enormity of the implications and the breadth of the discussion are absolutely phenomenal.

This is a hybrid offence. It means that matters can be handled by a summary conviction or by indictment. It may also still permit, in certain circumstances, conditional sentencing. It may in fact impose a mandatory minimum, effectively, in an inappropriate circumstance. I am not sure whether there is a model that is going to fit all. I am not sure whether raising the penalty from 5 to 10 years is going to be the best solution.

I am one member of Parliament. I have some concerns. I know we do not have the tools to be able to deal with these complex issues in debate of private members' business. We do not have the same opportunity to have a fulsome debate on the vital issues and all the relevant issues, but we do know one thing. We know that at committee we will have the opportunity to have that clear debate with the officials from the justice department and from groups and organizations who are advocating on behalf of protecting children and from the public at large through their members of Parliament. That is where this should happen. That is why I think it is extremely important that we get this bill to committee.

I should specifically indicate with regard to the bill that although it simply doubles the sentence from 5 to 10 years for a conviction by indictment for luring a child into a sexual act through the Internet, the bill does not alter the existing availability of summary conviction procedure, where the maximum sentence would be six months in prison. People will never understand a sentence of six months' imprisonment for someone who is a sexual predator. There is something wrong with that, and I agree.

It appears there is a second purpose of the bill. That is to bring this offence within a class of offences for which government Bill C-9 would remove conditional sentencing as an option if and only if proceeded with by indictment. We have to note that all other sentencing options, including suspended sentence, probation, fines, et cetera, would in fact remain with this bill whether the indictment or summary procedure was used. It is not exactly as advertised, as just increasing the sentence from 5 to 10 years. There is a lot more included in the family of possible outcomes with regard to a case.

The offence of luring in section 172.1 prohibits only communication to facilitate possible sexual acts. It is not the actual acts themselves that are dealt with. So the bill may be short, but the implications and the related issues are very broad.

I would like to conclude. I tend to agree with the speaker from the New Democratic Party who wanted to reach out to the House and to Canadians and say that bad things happen in this world but human beings are not born bad. They are a function of their environment. Loving, caring parents who guide them and give them a good sense of values help them to grow up to be good contributing members of society, but those who do not get that loving, that caring and that teaching obviously are the ones who have a higher probability of getting into some difficulty.

We do not need just tougher sentences. We still have to use all of the tools available. They involve prevention and education. They involve rehabilitation. They involve, in some cases, mandatory minimum sentences. In other cases, quite frankly, they require putting a person away and throwing away the key because there are cases that turn out like that.

I want to thank the member for bringing the bill forward, but I think members have shown the House that this bill has many more sweeping implications and that it should go to committee for us to properly address those other aspects of the bill.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for his hard work on Bill C-277 and for bringing it to this House.

I would also like to comment on some of the addresses that have been made in the House.

The Liberal member said that more information is needed to find out whether or not this bill is on the right track. Then let us send this bill to committee so we can have that debate and let us hear from the witnesses.

The Bloc has said that rehabilitation is needed. Let us send the bill to committee so that we can hear from the witnesses how to rehabilitate these pedophiles.

The NDP has just said that we need to prevent the crime and provide the tools. Let us send this bill to committee so that we can find out what tools are needed.

Bill C-277 addresses the seriousness of a criminal behaviour that targets our children: Internet luring.

Since 2002 it has been a crime in Canada to use the Internet to communicate with a child for the purpose of facilitating the commission of child sexual exploitation or abduction against a child. Because we criminalize this behaviour, we have to be able to track for the first time the prevalence of this type of activity.

Over 600 Internet luring cases have been referred to the police by Cybertip since 2002. The trend seems to show that it is becoming an increasingly more common problem.

Cybertip has been Canada's national tip line for child sexual exploitation on the Internet. It has been in operation collecting valuable data and referring child sexual exploitation cases to the police since 2002. The data provided by Cybertip.ca and the anecdotal evidence that has been collected over the last four years paints a disturbing picture of a typical Internet luring case.

Picture a man in his mid to late 30s who portrays himself as a 17-year-old boy, who spends his time online in teen chat rooms. Now picture a young girl, 13 years old, who likes to chat with her friends in the teen's chat room, where the conversations get a little racy. Imagine this man gaining the trust of this young girl, striking up a friendship, talking about life, love and sex. Imagine this man taking the relationship to another level, telephone calls, using webcams and perhaps even in-person meetings. This is a typical scenario and escalation of events in cases where a real victim is at risk.

This criminal behaviour is becoming increasingly prevalent, which means that Canadian children are increasingly at risk.

When the luring provision was originally enacted, it was introduced to address a problem. The problem was not related to luring per se because luring itself is not a new phenomenon but one that has been greatly facilitated by the Internet and its associated technologies.

The problem with the act of luring, the grooming and enticing of a young person, was at that time there was no specific offence of luring to commit a child sexual offence and it fell short of an attempt to commit a child sexual exploitation offence. Canadian jurisprudence that dealt with the issue of attempts required that the act, which would constitute the attempt, would be more than mere preparation. It would be difficult to characterize chat or email as more than mere preparation, hence, the creation of the offence of luring a child. The new offence criminalized communicating for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a child sexual exploitation or abduction offence.

Why is all of this very important? Because this is how the current penalty of the luring provision was determined.

Under the Criminal Code the penalty for attempts is half that of the substantive offence that was attempted. Therefore, since the new luring provision, in a way, criminalized activity that was somewhat less than what could normally be characterized as an attempt, it was seen as appropriate that the penalty should be half of what the other child sexual exploitation offences carried.

Today we look at Internet luring very differently. The prevalence of this criminal behaviour and the risk of physical contact have been two supporting factors for treating this crime more seriously.

However, it is the direct contact that is made between the predator and the victim via the Internet, where a relationship of trust is created for the sole purpose of exploiting the young person and betraying his or her trust, which escalates this behaviour above that of an attempt and puts it onto a level with that of the other child sexual exploitation offences.

The last time we debated the bill, a number of questions were posed in relation to it. After careful consideration of its aims and purposes, I think we may have the answers to those questions.

If members will allow me to refresh the collective memory of the House, the questions were the following. Does the existing penalty of Internet luring adequately reflect the serious nature of this offence, particularly in comparison to other contact child sexual offences? Would the proposed new maximum penalty be consistent with the penalty with contact child sexual offences? Would it be consistent with other measures that are currently before Parliament, including Bill C-9, which proposes Criminal Code reforms to prevent the use of conditional sentences for offences that carry a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment or more?

These are good questions. I believe I have already answered the first question, in that the current penalty scheme does not adequately reflect the seriousness of this type of criminal behaviour. Internet luring should be treated in the same way as the other Criminal Code offences relating to child sexual exploitation.

Second, Bill C-277, as amended, which calls for increasing the maximum penalty on indictment and summary conviction for the luring offence to 10 years and 18 months respectively, is completely consistent with the maximum penalties for the other child sexual exploitation contact offences. Only two child sexual exploitation offences continue to have a five year maximum penalty on indictment. Both are related to child pornography, possession and accessing, where contact with the potential child victim is not an element of the offence.

Finally, the bill is also complementary to government bills currently before the House, namely Bill C-9, on conditional sentence of imprisonment, and Bill C-22, on the age of protection. Bill C-277 also fits into the government's priority on tackling crime and, more specifically, on treating child sex exploitation crimes more seriously.

If enacted, Bill C-277 would, by virtue of raising the maximum penalty on indictment for the luring offence to 10 years, bring the offence up to the threshold contemplated in Bill C-9, which would remove the possibility of a conditional sentence, or house arrest, if the accused was prosecuted by the way of indictment.

Bill C-9 in its current form proposes to remove the possibility of conditional sentencing orders, which we commonly refer to as house arrest, for all serious crimes. Bill C-9 currently defines serious crimes as those crimes that carry a penalty of 10 years or more on indictment. The use of conditional sentencing in child sexual exploitation cases has been seriously criticized and Bill C-277 and Bill C-9 together will answer that criticism in part.

BillC-22, on the age of protection, although not directly linked to the penalty enhancements that are being proposed in Bill C-277, will expand the protective shield of section 172.1, the luring offence. Currently all children under 14 years are fully protected by section 172.1, but only some youth between 14 years and 18 years are protected by it. When Bill C-22 is enacted, the full protection of the luring offence will be extended to all children under 16 years.

New technologies, including the Internet, have created new opportunities for Canadians, and for the most part they have been extremely positive. However, they have also created new opportunities for would-be child molesters to anonymously and secretly enter into our homes through the Internet with a view to sexually exploiting our children.

Since its enactment in 2002, section 172.1 has served as a useful and effective tool for law enforcement and has resulted in convictions. In a recent Nova Scotia case, Kevin Randall was convicted of Internet luring as a result of engaging in explicit online communications with a person he believed was a 13-year-old girl but who was in reality an undercover police officer. The offender had arranged to meet the 13-year-old girl at a coffee shop, where the police apprehended him with a pocketful of condoms.

Clearly, section 172.1 is an important tool for law enforcement and it is being used to successfully secure the conviction of offenders. Our obligation as parliamentarians--

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-277.

Indeed, as members probably know, I have a 13-year-old grandson of whom I have legal custody. This issue is very important to me because I am aware that for a 13-year-old child, chatting on the Internet is much more interesting than doing homework. Every day I have to bring myself to discipline him to make him understand that too much chatting is not good.

Unfortunately, I believe this bill does not achieve the goals that it sets out to achieve. The Bloc Québécois has always recognized the need to better protect children and it took an active part in the pursuit of this goal, including through the recent addition of provisions on the luring of children to the Criminal Code. However, the increased maximum sentence proposed in Bill C-277 for this offence is aimed specifically and deliberately at increasing the scope of Bill C-9 on conditional sentencing.

In fact, Bill C-277, combined with Bill C-9, will give judges less flexibility and will take away from them the possibility of handing down a conditional sentence in certain minor cases. Currently, conditional sentences allow judges to give a person who is not a threat to society a sentence of less than two years to be served in the community.

Bill C-9, introduced by the Conservatives in the spring, eliminates conditional sentences for offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more.

The Bloc Québécois opposes this bill because the list of offences for which conditional sentences would be eliminated is arbitrary and includes offences such as graffiti, counterfeit money, credit fraud, false prospectus and mail theft.

Furthermore, by removing judges' prerogatives to order sentences in the community, Quebec and the other provinces would assume the additional financial burden of having to imprison more people, while that money could be better spent on rehabilitation and prevention.

The Bloc wants to do whatever it takes to protect children from predators. Unfortunately, the Bloc believes that Bill C-277 is not the way to achieve this.

Once again, the ideology of this Conservative government is modeled after the Americans. The government's proposal is based on the slogan Tough on crime. The idea behind this is simple, that is, to put as many criminals as possible in prison where the living conditions are intolerable and to keep them there as long as possible.

According to the Conservatives, this should get the criminals off the streets and dissuade others from committing crimes.

Furthermore, they believe that punishment is the key to controlling crime. The philosophy behind their policy is this: if penalties are lax, crime rates go up; if they are tough, crime rates come down.

However, our American neighbours have proven that this model does not work. The homicide rate in the United States is three times higher than in Canada, and four times higher than in Quebec. California spent $14 billion to build prisons between 1982 and 1993. The prison population increased by 500% and the overall crime rate went up by 75%.

In 1992, the situation was compared to that of Texas, which reacted very differently to the pressure on its prison system in the 1980s. In an economic recession, Texas decided to build fewer prisons and to impose more conditional releases. The only difference noted between the two crime rates was a certain increase in the repetitive nature of offences against property, although certain indications also attributed this to high unemployment rates in Texas during that time.

According to the information available, there is simply no compelling evidence that imprisonment or various periods of imprisonment have a greater deterrent effect, even for property offences. There are even some reasons to believe the opposite: recidivism rates for imprisoned offenders are higher than those for individuals given non-custodial sentences.

This is why the Bloc Québécois disagrees with this way of thinking, and it is not alone. In the 1988 report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General entitled “Taking Responsibility”, the committee admits that imprisonment has had no effect on rehabilitation, has not been a great deterrent and has contributed to protecting society only temporarily.

It also says that sure solutions to crime prevention are further sharing of wealth, working on better social integration and relying on rehabilitation. We can also see the success of the Quebec model, based on rehabilitation. There are fewer violent crimes in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada.

In the past, the Bloc Québécois has taken concrete measures on several occasions to better protect citizens. As evidence of this, we have antigang legislation, the reversal of the burden of proof, the reopening of RCMP detachments—thus better border region security—and protection against sexual exploitation and forced labour. The Bloc Québécois pressed the government to give priority to adopting this bill that will provide more legal tools to police officers in the fight against the scourge of sexual exploitation and forced labour. We also have a DNA bank. These are real tools that we can work with. Imprisonment is never the best solution.

Victims of violence are always foremost in our concerns.

Better protection for citizens is also and primarily accomplished by attacking the root of the problem and the causes of crime and violence. Poverty, inequality, and feeling excluded are the breeding grounds of crime.

The report by the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec deems conditional sentencing to be a tough, safe, and coherent measure that serves as a deterrent. In addition to its punitive value, conditional sentencing promotes the social reintegration of offenders without compromising the safety of our communities.

This measure, which has the support of the public, makes it possible to have a longer period of supervision for offenders jailed for committing similar offences. Abolishing conditional sentencing for more than 160 offences will not lead to improved safety of our communities. On the contrary, in the medium and long term, safety could be compromised.

Incarceration, particularly when unnecessary, can significantly impact offenders and their families in several ways: it can lead to loss of employment, poverty, isolation, worsening of social problems, loss of custody of children, inability to carry out certain responsibilities, loss of independence and so forth. These factors can place offenders and their families in a situation that is even more precarious and that could increase the chance of recidivism or firmly establish a lifestyle based on crime.

Before handing down a conditional sentence, the judge must make sure that the offender does not represent a threat to society. This helps ensure that conditional sentencing is a safe alternative.

It is also said that serving time in prison tends to increase the risk of reoffending, as compared to community-based sentences. That is also true. We are talking about crimes that can sometimes be abhorrent in some instances and pretty minor in other instances, but the judge could no longer use his or her discretion in sentencing. That is really dangerous.

Public opinion is in favour of conditional sentencing, while showing a legitimate concern about the individuals' dangerousness and about certain types of violent crimes. The Supreme Court of Canada has pointed out that conditional sentences are designed not only to punish and denounce, but also to rehabilitate. The highest court of the land further stated that such a sentence provides an alternative which promotes both monitoring and behavioural improvement.

Moreover, this is a sentence that allows people to show that they are able to function properly in society, to take responsibility for their behaviour and to abide by the mandatory and optional terms and conditions of the conditional sentence order.

I will conclude with these words of my brilliant colleague from Hochelaga:

Let me be clear, we are not saying that luring children is not important... It is not that the member's bill... is not important. In fact, it is so important that we supported it when it was introduced by the previous government. We cannot, however, agree with the idea of increasing the sentence from five years to ten so that people who are found guilty of luring children under the Criminal Code cannot serve their sentence in the community—

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

My question is addressed to Mr. Pierre-Paul Pichette. You heard my preamble, but I would like you to tell me whether Bill C-9... I know what your opinion is, but I would like you to elaborate further with respect to drug trafficking, if you don't mind.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is addressed to Mr. Pichette, and perhaps to Ms. Gray-Donald. I will come back to Mr. Stewart after that.

I would like to say right off the bat that I am a member of the new Conservative Party and that, although people don't believe it, we do feel compassion for victims. That is the whole reason behind Bill C-9.

I particularly want to thank Mr. Serge Ménard, because he was my Minister of Public Safety. He worked on very important issues. I'm sure you remember the gang wars, involving the Hell's Angels. Heaven knows you certainly got more than your share of it in Montreal. I also know that he was very tough in terms of the decisions he made as Minister of Public Safety. The gang war that took place in the Montreal region was linked to the drug trade, and to what is known as territory.

Although it may not seem violent at first glance, drug trafficking is extremely violent. Drug traffickers create demand among young people. The small joint that is passed around ends up becoming one joint a day, and then one joint an hour. And young people get their supply from organized groups and drug traffickers.

What crimes do they commit? Well, because they don't have enough money, they start by committing robbery. Then they get involved in breaking and entering. The 65-year old lady who is robbed at home is not amused when that happens. Then comes conjugal violence, because of or the other has spent money. They fight, and you know what happens after that. And there's also prostitution. We were talking about mail theft earlier. Welfare recipients in my province end up having their monthly cheques stolen. These people change their identity in order to be able to cash it at the corner store and then go and buy drugs.

How do you expect a person who is 65 years of age to protect herself if she lives in the country and, as is very often the case, it's someone with links to her own family? No crime is really minor. It all depends on who the victim is and when the crime is committed.

I was surprised yesterday to hear it said that 40% of the drugs are entering our prisons. These are people who are locked up and under 24-hour surveillance. And yet 40% of the drugs are entering the prisons. A drug trafficker who has been given a conditional sentence is sitting at home and has nothing better to do than answer the telephone. And with all the electronic and telephone options available today, he could just as easily do that from a bar in the neighbourhood and say that he is at home.

We have been saddled with a ridiculous system. We're told that a person under surveillance costs $1,742 a year. But have you thought about what is made possible as a result of that money? Ridicule may not be fatal, but almost.

Something intrigues me here. Two or three days ago, in the Montreal region and elsewhere, at Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport and other airports, we heard that drug traffickers had threatened employees who are police officers, and that they bribed even the employees responsible for security. This involves all the airports, the one in Toronto, the one in Montreal or those in British Columbia, where there are also ports that have been infiltrated by criminal groups.

Drugs are streaming into our country and creating all kinds of problems. We practically have to get down on our knees and beg the members of the Opposition to vote in favour of Bill C-9, so that drug traffickers can no longer enjoy the freedom they currently have. I'm wondering whether Bill C-9 is not an indirect way... We've seen this, and we could review all the crimes. Each one has its specific pros and cons.

[Pierre-Paul Pichette]

Canadians' sense of security is one of the issues that all police forces have to deal with. It is connected to the police forces themselves, but also to the rationale behind our legal system and the sentence associated with the crime, as well as the repercussions for society as a whole.

We are in favour of Bill C-9, but we believe that ultimately, the public's perception will change if those who commit crimes are put in jail and have to serve a certain amount of time in institutions for the crime they have committed. I believe that that is where the benefit lies. Allow me to draw an analogy. Car theft in Quebec is becoming, both within our own police organization and in the court system, a crime for which short sentences are handed down. It is no longer a crime.

I think we have to be careful how we use the provisions of the Criminal Code, in order not to trivialize them. If we trivialize them, the goal pursued by the Criminal Code will not be met.

[Krista Gray-Donald, Director of Research, Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee.

The Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, or CRCVC, is a national non-profit victim advocacy group for crime victims. We provide direct assistance to crime victims dealing with the criminal justice system as well as advocate for justice reform to better protect their rights and prevent victimization.

The CRCVC is pleased to take part in the debate over Bill C-9 . The proposed change to section 742.1 of the Criminal Code will address concerns that victims of serious and violent crime have expressed to our organization on numerous occasions. These concerns predominantly surround the distress and unease that they feel when they see offenders, not only those who perpetrated their own victimization but also those who commit other serious crimes, sentenced to house arrest, penalties that are not proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed. We believe that the elimination of access to conditional sentences for serious and/or violent crime addresses some of these concerns.

Conditional sentences were introduced in 1996 and allowed for certain sentences of imprisonment to be served in the community or under house arrest. These sentences are neither incarceration nor probation, but fall in between the two. The theory behind the sentencing provisions was that offenders who commit less serious non-violent offences may serve their sentence in the community, avoiding incarceration. They remain under supervision and have restrictions on their freedom and mobility. Conditional sentencing provisions do achieve this end, but some offenders have been receiving conditional sentences for more serious offences, including serious assaults, sexual assaults, and driving offences that result in death or serious harm.

As you're aware, there are several criteria that must be met for an offender to be eligible for a conditional sentence; these are set out in the provisions from 1996. We have seen that these criteria have not sufficiently restricted access to conditional sentences for the offenders who commit the serious and violent offences, who include repeat offenders.

Bill C-9 seeks to address this discrepancy by adding another restriction, focusing on the type of crime that is eligible for house arrest. The amendment to section 742.1 provides that offences tried by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more are ineligible for a conditional sentence. As such, the CRCVC supports the underlying goal of Bill C-9, but has reservations that the criteria for eliminating access to conditional sentences--that the offence carry a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more and be tried by indictment--will leave certain serious and/or violent offences still eligible for a conditional sentence. It also leaves hybrid offences that are ineligible for house arrest if tried by indictment eligible if tried summarily. These offences include sexual assault and criminal harassment.

The CRCVC believes that serious and/or violent offences, especially those that victimize children or other vulnerable people, should not be eligible for a conditional sentence. Of particular concern to our organization are sexual offences. Unfortunately, the ten-year maximum term rule that this bill proposes would not restrict offenders convicted of the following offences from receiving conditional sentences if they met the other criteria: removal of a child from Canada, section 273.3; sexual exploitation, section 153; sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, subsection 153.1(1); voyeurism, section 162; duty to provide necessities, section 215; abandoning a child, section 218; luring a child, section 172.1; abducting a person under 16, section 280. We believe that the above-noted offences are serious and often violent in nature, and therefore the offenders who commit them should not be allowed to serve their sentence under limited supervision within the community.

According to the legislative summary provided on Bill C-9, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics estimates that the average cost of supervising an offender in the community in 2002-03 was $1,792. We question how effective that supervision is for the offenders, given that the figure equates with less than $5 per day spent supervising any given offender.

Given that supervision of these offenders is carried out by probation and parole officers who are overworked and come from understaffed offices, it is unlikely that the supervision is very effective for those offenders. We also question the effectiveness of that supervision for certain types of offences and restrictions--for example, the concerns mentioned above and the almost limitless ways that individuals can access the Internet. How is a probation officer to ensure that a sex offender who is not permitted to access the Internet is not doing so when he is not supervised?

Like those offences covered by Bill C-9, the offences we list above often have lasting physical and emotional consequences for their victims. Failing to include them on the list of those offences no longer eligible for conditional sentence minimizes the impact of these crimes and is a failure to address the gravity of these offences. There are numerous offences for which conditional sentences and the associated level of supervision that would be attached to the sentence are appropriate. Research has shown that victims support this view; they do not, however, support conditional sentences for violent offences. We echo that position.

Proponents of conditional sentences maintain that they are a necessary component of the restorative justice process. Restricting the proposed offences from eligibility for conditional sentence does not mean that there is no hope for restorative justice in these cases. Restorative justice principles do not advocate for the reduction of incarceration to facilitate the restorative justice process. Restorative justice is about ensuring that the victim's needs are both heard and addressed.

The CRCVC feels that the provisions for conditional sentencing, as introduced in 1996, have resulted in far too many violent criminals receiving sentences that are too lenient when compared to the impact of their offences. This is not the intent of the provisions. Bill C-9 begins to address this imbalance, and we support the bill in principle. We feel that the proposal can be strengthened so that crimes that are violent and serious in nature, which currently fall outside of its scope, may be included in the legislative change. Adopting a scheme that includes a list of offences that encompasses both those that fall within its scope and those that we feel should be included will serve to limit the applicability of conditional sentencing options to those offences for which the provisions were originally intended.

We would therefore recommend that the following changes be made with respect to Bill C-9.

We recommend it be amended to include the following offences, which I listed earlier: removal of a child from Canada; sexual exploitation; sexual exploitation of a child with a disability; voyeurism; duty to provide necessities; abandoning a child; luring a child; abducting a person under 16; and other serious and violent offences.

We recommend that BillC-9 be amended such that the list of offences that are ineligible for conditional sentence be specified in a schedule rather than the current method proposed by the bill. This would allow for the inclusion of offences not included and the exclusion of those offences for which a conditional sentence is appropriate. And we recommend that the amended legislation be passed by Parliament without delay.

Thank you for the opportunity.

[Clayton Pecknold, Deputy Chief, Central Saanich Police Service, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.

Many of you will know that the CACP appears before your committee and before the Senate on a wide range of bills. Generally speaking, we tend to appear on bills that consist of amendments to substantive offences and those affecting police powers. However, while Bill C-9 deals solely with the matter of sentencing, we do have some comments that we hope will be of assistance to you.

We understand you have a busy session ahead of you, with many bills. I would like to take the opportunity to give you a snapshot of our association's overall view of criminal law reform.

With respect to Bill C-9, the proposed changes to the scope of the conditional sentence orders, the CACP supports the bill and believes that conditional sentence orders are an inappropriate response to violent or other serious crime. We would, however, offer two points for consideration.

The first point is with respect to the scope of the bill. The background material published on the parliamentary website suggests that some criticism of the bill has stated that by placing the eligibility for CSOs at indictable offences carrying a ten-year or greater penalty, the bill captures offences that are not offences of violence or otherwise considered serious. I think we heard my friend from the John Howard Society refer to that. From our point of view, we suggest the opposite is also true, in that one offence in particular is excluded from the scope of the amendment. That is subsection 467.11, which provides a five-year penalty for those convicted or participating in activities of a criminal organization. On the other hand, the other two criminal organization offences, subsection 467.12, commission of an offence for a criminal organization, and subsection 467.13, instructing commission of an offence for criminal organization, are covered by the amendment, as they carry a maximum penalty in excess of ten years.

The CACP is of the view and our organized crime committee is of the view that this is an anomalous result and that CSO should be unavailable for any offence involving a criminal organization. We need hardly remind this honourable committee of the serious threat organized crime poses to the safety and security of Canadians. We respectfully suggest, therefore, that the Canadian public would find the use of the CSO for persons participating in the activity of a criminal organization contrary to a favourable view of the criminal justice system.

This is not to say, however, that we object to the manner in which the bill is drafted. If Parliament is inclined to agree with us on the matter, we would further respectfully caution against an amendment that creates schedules or lists of offences. As the CACP has observed before, the criminal law, and most especially the Criminal Code, has gradually increased in its complexity such as to make it virtually unfathomable in places. Instead, we would suggest an amendment that specifically ensures that all offences committed by a criminal organization are ineligible for CSO.

Our second comment is more general in nature and falls along with the comments on the complexity of the criminal law and the public's general faith in the justice system.

This bill is arguably one of the least complex, in terms of its drafting, that we have seen in recent years. However, while Bill C-9 is not particularly complex, the law of sentencing in the Criminal Code is. As with many aspects of the Criminal Code, the CACP believes that quick fixes and band-aids are no longer sufficient. We believe two things: first, that the criminal law, including the law of sentencing, is in need of a sustained and comprehensive overhaul if the criminal justice system is to regain the eroding confidence of the public; second, that your policing community is well situated to provide meaningful participation and input.

Let me state clearly that this is not an indictment from your police about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Clearly, the charter has had an enormous impact on the way the police must do their job and how a criminal trial is conducted. Policing is a much more complex activity than it was before the charter, but so is the world in general, and we recognize that. It is the fundamental duty of all police officers to uphold respect for the law, and this applies with particular certainty to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Police in a democratic society must always be subject to the rule of law, and this is a value the CACP holds dear. However, we do believe that the legislative response to landmark charter decisions has been overly procedurally complex in such a way as to multiply the on-the-street impact of charter decisions to a point, perhaps, not envisioned by the Supreme Court. An example that comes immediately to mind is the addition of subsections 25.1 and 25.2 of the code, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Campbell and Shirose. This amendment created a procedural regime that in practice has been very challenging to implement with consistency across the country.

To be frank, we have found it difficult to understand how and when this trend to undue complexity found root with the drafters of our criminal law. We intend to take every opportunity to advocate before you and the public for less complexity and more common sense in legislative drafting. I add parenthetically that these are points we make with justice officials frequently in our consultations.

In brief, therefore, we would offer our endorsement of the bill with the strong request that no CSO be available for offences involving organized crime. We would also ask that as this committee moves forward with its work you would consider the context in which the criminal laws must, as a matter of practice, be workable. You need not be reminded, I'm sure, that it is your police who must find their way through an increasingly complex society, using only those tools you allow them to keep, in order to keep the public safe.

For our part, the CACP will continue to offer you the voice of Canadian police leadership as you move forward with your work on this bill and on the many others to come.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I'll ask my colleague to conclude.