Bill C-9 (Historical)

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

This enactment amends section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of that Act, a terrorism offence or a criminal organization offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more is not eligible for a conditional sentence.

Criminal Code

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-16, it is important to set it in its context.

I will try to demolish the myth of the Conservatives being concerned about crime and victims in our country. I wish the person who keeps talking about the revolving door had some knowledge of it. He obviously is fully ignorant of it. The condition that will come from the bill, if it ever gets through the House and into law, will encourage repeat recidivism at a much higher rate than it if does not get through.

Let us go back to the myth. Conservatives stand in the House repeatedly, and in public even much more often, and claim to be tough on crime, but this bill is the classic example of them being not smart on crime at all, but also being highly hypocritical when they take that.

It is one of a series of bills that has not received any attention from the House and not passed through to final debate because of decisions made by the government, whether it called the election in a complete contrary theme to the legislation the Conservatives themselves had passed and which they again had promulgated as a major reform then promptly ignored and breached, but any number of crime bills some of which were in areas that did not need to be dealt with. They just get sloughed off because they call an election or they prorogue the House and we have to start all over again.

We have seen that repeatedly, literally in the range of 10 to 20 bills that are constantly being shoved backwards because the government is much more interested in its political survival than it is in dealing with those issues in our society around crime.

I will make a second point before I go specifically to Bill C-16 because Bill C-16 raises this issue. I have been saying repeatedly in the House, at every opportunity I get, that we badly need a systematic, holistic review of our Criminal Code.

We see it in the sections, and I hope, if I have enough time today, I will be able to point some of these out before I finish my speech on Bill C-16. However, we have huge contradictions in the Criminal Code, repeated contradictions, both with regard to the nature of the conduct we are trying to make a crime and with regard to sentencing.

We will see situations where I think the average Canadian would say that obviously this is the range of penalty and punishment that this crime should elicit. Then they will take another section that has more extensive penalties and punishment and the crime itself is of much less serious consequence in the eyes of the average Canadian. That is repeated over and over again. There is huge duplication in the Criminal Code.

We have been, and the government is particularly guilty of this, piecemealing amendments to the code way too long.

It is interesting, if we look at the experience in the United States and to a lesser degree in England, their approaches have been much more systematic in major reform. There are some ideas we could learn from those. I will not go on with my diatribe on that, but we badly need to do something about the Criminal Code.

Let me finish with this in this regard. One of the things where we could have done this was with the Law Commission, which was promptly done away with in the first term of the government. It was the ideal body in the country that could have initiated this. In fact, it was beginning to do some work on what was a crime, what should be a crime. It was beginning to do research on it when all of its funds were cut by the government. I think that happened in the 2007-08 budget.

Had that not happened, we might have finally seen some meaningful movement on getting that major reform to the code, which would make the job of our police officers, our prosecutors and our judiciary a lot easier than it is now.

Going to Bill C-16, to set this in context, roughly 14 years ago, September 1996, we introduced into the code the concept of conditional sentences. What conditional sentences were to do was part of the overall reform we were doing through that period of time, trying to make our criminal justice system not only more fair but more efficient, more effective. Overall we have seen that we have made some significant progress in that regard by reducing the rate of crime, particularly violent crime, in this country.

I fight oftentimes on the justice committee, as I did on the public safety committee when I was there, with my Conservative colleagues about not seeing the numbers right or numbers being manipulated, which I find frankly quite insulting to Statistics Canada, specifically Juristat that does an excellent job with the statistics. But the bottom line when we get into that debate is we cannot argue about the murder rate. In 99% of the cases there is a body or witnesses to say this person was murdered. We cannot argue about that, and the reality is that the murder rate in absolute numbers, not just in percentages but in absolute numbers, has been dropping for the last 20 to 25 years. We peaked in Canada at about 900 murders in one year. We are now down, averaging over the last few years in the range of 610 to 650. So there has been that kind of drop in murders in this country.

Over that 25 year period, our population would have gone up by 10%, 12% or 15%, so the murder rate has dropped quite dramatically. Part of that is attributable to the reforms we have carried out through this period of time, and the conditional sentences were one of those reforms. We introduced them. The concept behind them is, and this has been found all the way up to Supreme Court decisions, that they are a form of incarceration. This always gets ballyhooed by some of the pundits but mostly by the Conservative Party, but they are in fact a form of incarceration. Prisoners are in their own residences not in institutions, but under very strict conditions, and I think this is the point again that the Conservatives regularly forget, much stricter conditions than we can do under either probation or even under parole, when prisoners are coming out of a federal institution.

The other point one has to make about a conditional sentence is that it cannot be used, no matter what the charge is and what the facts are, unless the judicial officer makes the determination that the appropriate sentence would be less than two years. That is the way it has always worked since 1996, in spite of some of the amendments we made a few years ago. That is still the basic condition. Judicial officers at whatever level of court they are sitting have to hear all the facts of the crime, and the facts around sentencing, and then make a determination that if they are going to send the person to custody, to incarceration, they are going to send him or her to a provincial institution because the determination, after hearing all the facts, is that the person should be incarcerated for less than two years. No matter how severe the offence is, on its surface and after looking at all the facts, judicial officers are determining a sentence of less than two years.

Everybody in the House knows that if people are going to be sentenced to less than two years, they are going to be sentenced to a provincial institution. So the incarceration rate we are talking about, if the bill were to go through, is all going to be about individuals who would be going into provincial institutions. Those people would no longer be eligible for conditional sentence; the judge would determine they are going to be incarcerated. As is so typical of the government, no arrangements are being made with the provincial governments to pay for all those additional spaces.

I want to highlight this by pointing out that the first crime bill the Conservatives brought into the House in 2006, after they were elected, was Bill C-9 and it dealt with this issue. At that time they introduced about 40 sections of the Criminal Code that would no longer be eligible for conditional sentences.

I thought the height of hypocrisy was when they did their public relations work on this and they talked about these being serious violent crimes that were no longer going to be eligible. I have to say, and I say this with some pride on the part of myself, my party and the opposition parties, that there were four or five, maybe six, sections of the code that in fact did deal with serious violent crimes. Some were sexual assaults; some were robbery with violence; they were those types of crimes.

The opposition parties said that the government was right, that people who commit these crimes and are convicted of these crimes, even when the judge is saying they should not go to jail for more than two years, should not be eligible for conditional sentences. We agreed to that.

However approximately another 35 sections had nothing to do with violent crime. The one I always use as an example of these sections that we were not going to be able to consider conditional sentencing for was falsifying a testamentary document such as a will or trust document. That was going to be excluded from consideration of the use of conditional sentence. And we could go through the list. There were some forgery sections that are clearly nothing to do with a violent crime. At the end of the day, the opposition parties stripped that bill of those 35-odd sections, dealt with the serious ones and passed it, and it is now law.

There is one other point we have to make about Bill C-9, because to some degree, not as severely, it is going to be repeated if Bill C-16 goes through. Early on in the committee process of Bill C-9, I asked the Department of Justice to tell me and the committee how many more people were going to go into custody. At the time, and it was not much smaller then, there were about 12,000 people in custody. If Bill C-9 had gone through as originally proposed by the government, there would have been an additional 5,000 people incarcerated in our provincial institutions every year.

The point I want to make, and we are seeing this again when we see the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety come before their respective committees, is that they do not know, and if they do know, they are obfuscating what is in fact the reality. At that period of time, both those ministers were in front of the justice committee and neither one of them knew, until we dug that information out of the Department of Justice, how many people were going to be incarcerated. But they were quite prepared to go ahead and pass that kind of legislation for charges that clearly fit exactly into the rationale of why we started with conditional sentences. They were going to exclude them from use and had no idea of how many people were going to go into custody.

We are seeing the same thing repeated this time. Maybe not with the report that is going to be coming out this week from the Parliamentary Budget Office on how much it is going to cost for one of the other bills that has gone through this House and is now law, but I am still expecting the Minister of Justice to show up at the justice committee, assuming this gets there, and say to us, “Do not worry. Be happy. There is enough room in our custodial settings to take care of all the additional people who are going to end up there.”

If he says that, he is going to be saying it from a complete base of ignorance, because we know, and we heard it from my colleague from the Bloc, that in all of the provincial institutions, without exception, right across all 10 provinces and all 3 territories, their facilities are bulging.

We have an international responsibility. We have signed protocols at the international level to not double-bunk. We have signed those. That is a treaty that this country has committed itself to, and there is not one province in the country that is abiding by it.

We are double-bunking and in a lot of cases triple-bunking, and we are beginning to do it more and more in the federal institutions. Therefore, we are breaching the international commitments we made to other countries.

I want to make one more point about the use of this device, again referring to my colleague who raised the revolving door issue. It is about recidivism. The statistics show and have shown for at least the last 10 years that if someone is put under control under conditional sentencing, within the first year, since that is the comparison we are doing, there is an 11% rate of recidivism where another crime is committed. Oftentimes, I have to say, the vast majority of that 11% is not actually a new crime but a breach of the conditions the person is under. The other 89% live up to the conditions. They are law abiding and do not commit any other crimes.

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour for me to rise today to begin second reading debate on Bill C-16, ending house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious and violent offenders Act.

This bill, aptly named, proposes to restrict the availability of conditional sentences in the same manner as advanced in the former Bill C-42 in the last session of Parliament. Our government is taking further action to crack down on crime and to protect the safety and security of our communities.

A conditional sentence of imprisonment is one that is less than two years and one that a court may permit an offender to serve in the community under conditions and supervision. Bill C-16 proposes amendments to the Criminal Code to ensure that conditional sentences are never available for serious and violent offenders, and serious property offences which were never intended to be eligible for a conditional sentence in the first place.

Let me be clear to all members of the House. This government's proposed legislation would ensure that House arrest is no longer used for offences that pose a significant risk to law-abiding citizens.

Conditional sentences of imprisonment came into force over 13 years ago with the proclamation in 1996 of Bill C-41, entitled “Sentencing Reform”, which is found in chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1995. Among the key elements of that legislation were the following: the creation of conditional sentences as a new sentencing option; the first ever parliamentary statement of the purpose and principles of sentencing, which are contained in sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada; and increased emphasis on the interests of crime victims, including the recognition that the harm done to victims should be considered at the time of sentencing.

As originally enacted in 1996, a conditional sentence was available as a sentencing option provided that the following prerequisites were met: first, the sentence must be less than two years in duration; second, the court must be satisfied that allowing the offender to serve the sentence of imprisonment in the community will not endanger the safety of the community; and third, the offence must not be punishable by a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.

Shortly after the implementation of Bill C-41 and in response to concerns that courts were awarding conditional sentence orders for quite serious offences, a requirement was added that the court be satisfied that sentencing the offender to serve a conditional sentence of imprisonment is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing as set out in the Criminal Code.

The fundamental purpose of sentencing, as described in section 718 of the code, states that a sentence must contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: first, denouncing unlawful conduct; second, deterring the offender and other persons from committing offences; third, separating offenders from society where necessary; fourth, assisting in the rehabilitation of offenders; fifth, providing reparation for harm done to victims or the community; and finally, promoting a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to the community.

The preconditions for a conditional sentence, along with the deemed aggravating factors added to the Criminal Code by Bill C-41, such as evidence that the offender abused a position of trust, were designed to screen out serious offences committed in circumstances for which denunciation, general deterrence, and incapacitation should be considered the primary sentencing objectives. In addition, the fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

In 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada held in Regina v. Proulx that the conditional sentencing regime does not exclude any category of offences other than those with a minimum period of incarceration, nor is there a presumption for or against its use for any category of offence. The court said, however, that it was open for Parliament to introduce such limitations. Unfortunately, sentencing courts have interpreted the availability of conditional sentences in an inconsistent fashion because of the lack of clear parameters, allowing in some instances violent and serious offenders to serve their sentences under a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

This unfortunately has resulted in criticism of the sanction and a loss of public confidence in the administration of justice and, I would submit, in the justice system overall.

The government responded expeditiously to these concerns when it took office by tabling, in May of 2006, Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding conditional sentence of imprisonment. As introduced, Bill C-9 proposed to eliminate the availability of conditional sentences for any offences punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more that were prosecuted by indictment.

This would have caught serious crimes such as sexual offences, weapons offences, offences against children, and also serious property crime such as fraud and theft over $5,000. However, as ultimately passed by Parliament, Bill C-9 only further restricted the availability of conditional sentences by excluding terrorism offences, organized crime offences, and serious personal injury offences that were punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more and when they were prosecuted by indictment.

As defined by section 752 of the Criminal Code, a serious personal injury offence has two components. First, it is defined to specifically include the three general sexual assault offences which are contained in sections 271, 272 and 273 of the Criminal Code that are used for adult and some child victims.

However, the second component of a serious personal injury offence does not provide the same certainty because it includes indictable offences other than high treason, treason, first degree murder or second degree murder involving the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person, or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person, for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 10 years or longer.

It is this aspect of the existing conditional sentencing provisions that are so problematic and this is what the bill before us today addresses. Rather than leaving it to the individual courts to determine whether a particular case qualifies as a serious personal injury offence, this bill clearly identifies all offences which will never be eligible for a conditional sentence. It removes the uncertainty and provides clarity to our law.

Up until the coming into force of Bill C-9 on December 1, 2007, sentencing courts only interpreted serious personal injury offence for the purposes of determining whether the threshold for a dangerous or long-term offender application had been met under part 24 of the Criminal Code. This is because the term had been enacted and defined for the dangerous and long-term offender provisions only.

Since Bill C-9 came into force, courts have had to interpret the definition of serious personal injury offences in the context of conditional sentences, a context which is quite different than that for dangerous and long-term offenders.

For instance, in Regina v. Becker in 2009, a decision of the Alberta Provincial Court, and in Regina v. Thompson, a decision by the Ontario Court of Justice, the courts were asked to determine whether the offence of robbery was a serious personal injury offence in the context of the availability of conditional sentences.

In both cases, threats were made, yet in only one of the two cases did the court ultimately find that robbery met the definition of a serious personal injury offence. In other words, the eligibility of the same offence, in this case robbery, for a conditional sentence was interpreted differently by these two courts, with the result that a conditional sentence was available in one case but not in the other. Clearly, that inconsistency needs to be resolved.

In two other cases before the Courts of Appeal in the same two provinces, both courts interpreted the serious personal injury in the conditional sentence context in the same way, but differently from how serious personal injury had been interpreted to date in the dangerous offender context. More specifically, in the 2009 decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal, in Regina v. Ponticorvo, the court held that serious personal injury in the conditional sentence context included the use or attempted use of any violence and was not restricted to only the use of serious violence. In so doing, the court applied a different interpretation than it had to the same term in the dangerous offender context in Regina v. Neve in 1999.

Moreover, the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in Regina v. Lebar, in 2010, confirmed this approach and concluded that for the purpose of the availability of conditional sentences, Parliament created:

--a divide between crimes where violence is or is not used, not between crimes of serious violence and less serious violence.

That is found at paragraph 69 of the Ontario Court of Appeal judgment.

What these cases illustrate is that there is considerable uncertainty about how the existing conditional sentences will be interpreted and applied. However, this bill would provide the needed clarity and the certainty to say which offences are not eligible for a conditional sentence. This would, in turn, prevent the need to wait for these issues to be finally resolved by the appellant courts.

Another concern is that the definition of serious personal injury offences does not cover other serious property crimes which would still be eligible for a conditional sentence.

For instance, fraud, which can have a devastating impact on the lives of its victims, is punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years. Although this type of offence can be every bit as devastating as a serious personal injury offence, it is still technically eligible for a conditional sentence.

In addition, the current prerequisites of the availability of a conditional sentence do not exclude drug offences unless they are committed as part of a criminal organization and provided that they are punishable by 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment. Consequently, as a result, a conditional sentence would be available for the production, importation and trafficking in a schedule 1 drug, such as heroin.

I think members would agree with me that most Canadians would not find that result reasonable.

It is my view that the current conditional sentencing regime still fails to categorically make conditional sentences ineligible for many very serious crimes. Greater clarity and greater consistency is needed to limit the availability of conditional sentences and to protect Canadians from serious and violent offenders.

In order to address these concerns, this bill proposes to eliminate the reference to serious personal injury offences in section 742.1 and make all offences punishable by 14 years, or life, ineligible for a conditional sentence. This would make the offences of fraud, robbery and many other crimes ineligible for conditional sentences.

It would also clearly make offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by 10 years that result in bodily harm, that involve the import or export, trafficking and production of drugs, or that involve the use of a weapon, ineligible for a conditional sentence.

While this element of the legislation would significantly limit the ambit of the conditional sentencing regime, the addition of these categories would not capture all serious offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years.

To resolve this, this bill also proposes a list of 11 specific offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years that, upon passage of this legislation, would become ineligible for a conditional sentence. These offences are: prison breach, luring a child, criminal harassment, sexual assault, forcible confinement, trafficking in persons, abduction, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and arson for fraudulent purposes.

Conditional sentences are an appropriate sentencing tool, in many cases. However, access to them does need to be restricted when it comes to serious property and serious violent offences.

This government shares the common sense belief of all Canadians, that the punishment should fit the crime, especially when it comes to serious and violent offences, and serious and violent offenders.

This legislation, when passed by this House, would make it clear to the courts that those who commit serious property and violent offences will serve jail time and that house arrest will no longer be an available sentencing option.

I hope that all hon. members will appreciate that and support this legislation.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister and witnesses, for being here.

I'm always interested in hearing about the provincial level from an ideological standpoint. But my experience has generally been that when you ask how many additional people are going to be incarcerated as a result of this bill--as it was with Bill C-9--with probably 95% or 98% of them in provincial institutions, not one attorney general or solicitor general in the country can give me any numbers. Members of this committee dug out numbers based on some calculations when Bill C-9 was going through.

I'm wondering if it's any different this time. Do we have any sense of how many offences this is going to cover? You should be able to get that from Juristat. How many more people are we going to have in custody at the provincial level?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be with you once again, this time on Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act). This bill will contribute to people's confidence in the criminal justice system by proposing additional restrictions to the use of conditional sentences of imprisonment.

I know this committee is quite familiar with the issue, given the amendments that took place in 2007. To understand why we're pursuing other reforms, I'd like to say this. Conditional sentences became a sentencing option over 13 years ago with the proclamation in September 1996 of the sentencing reform bill. Conditional sentences were to provide an intermediate sentencing option between probation and incarceration to permit less serious offenders to remain in the community under strict conditions: their sentence was less than two years; the court was satisfied that allowing the offender to serve the sentence of imprisonment in the community would not endanger the safety of the community; and the offence was not punishable by a mandatory term of imprisonment.

In 2000, the Supreme Court of Canada held in Regina v. Proulx that a sentencing court must first find that a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years is appropriate, before considering whether the sentence can be served in the community under a conditional sentence order. In other words, a court must be of the opinion that a probation order and/or a fine would not adequately address the seriousness of the offence; a penitentiary term would not be necessary to do so; and a sentence of less than two years would be appropriate. Once this decision is made, a court would then determine whether the sentence of imprisonment of less than two years may be served in the community, bearing in mind the other prerequisites in section 742.

A number of observers, including some of my provincial and territorial colleagues, became increasingly concerned with the wide array of offences that received conditional sentences of imprisonment. By the time our government assumed power in 2006, it had become clear to us that further limits to the availability of conditional sentences were needed. We responded to those concerns when we tabled Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) on May 4, 2006. It was referred to this committee a month later, in June. Bill C-9, in its original form, proposed to eliminate conditional sentences for offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a sentence of 10 years or more.

It was, and still is, the opinion of this government that offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10, 14 years, or life are serious offences that should not result in a conditional sentence order. This is so, even if the court ultimately finds that a sentence of less than two years is proportionate to the circumstances of the offence. Bill C-9, as originally drafted, would have caught serious crime, such as weapon offences, offences committed against children, and serious property crimes. However, Bill C-9 was amended so it would only capture terrorism offences, organized crime offences, and serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code--those that are punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment. This was similar to the approach taken in Bill C-70 that the previous government had tabled in the fall of 2005, but died on the order paper.

The amendments to Bill C-9 created some strange results. First, the amendment to Bill C-9 created a situation whereby offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment or life are not all considered to be serious crimes. I shouldn't have to remind the members of this committee that these are the highest maximum available in the code.

Second, as a result of the amendments to Bill C-9, offences contained in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act are not excluded for eligibility for a conditional sentence unless they are committed as part of a criminal organization. Consequently, the production, importation, and trafficking of a schedule 1 drug, such as heroin, would not be caught and would still be eligible for a conditional sentence of imprisonment. As members of the committee know, our government has proposed mandatory penalties for serious drug offences in Bill C-15. I therefore expect that when that legislation is enacted, as I hope it soon will be, these offences will be ineligible for a conditional sentence.

Third, the use of the term “serious personal injury”, as defined for dangerous and long-term offenders, was appropriated to serve as a limit to the availability of conditional sentences as a result of the amendments to Bill C-9. Up until that bill's coming into force on December 1, 2007, sentencing courts had only to interpret serious personal injury offence for the purpose of determining whether the threshold for a dangerous or long-term offender application had been met, because that term only applied to dangerous and long-term offenders. Since Bill C-9 came into force, courts have wrestled with the interpretation of serious personal injury offences in the context of conditional sentences.

A concern with the definition of serious personal injury offences is that serious property crimes such as fraud could still be eligible for a conditional sentence. We're all aware of the recent examples of the devastating impact of fraudulent conduct. Victims who have lost their life savings have called for strengthened sentences for these types of crime. It is difficult to disagree with their concerns, especially considering the fact that fraud, which is punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years, would still be eligible for a conditional sentence, despite the reforms enacted in Bill C-9.

It's clear to me, and I suggest to many Canadians, that greater clarity and consistency are needed to eliminate the availability of conditional sentences for serious violent and serious property crimes. For these reasons, Bill C-42 proposes to remove the reference to serious personal injury offences in section 742.1 and make all offences that are punishable by 14 years or life ineligible for a conditional sentence. This would make the offence of fraud and many other crimes ineligible for a conditional sentence.

Bill C-42 would also clearly make offences that are prosecuted by indictment and punishable by 10 years and result in bodily harm, involve the import-export, trafficking, or production of drugs, or involve the use of a weapon ineligible for a conditional sentence. While these elements of the legislation will significantly limit the ambit of the conditional sentencing regime, the addition of these categories would not exclude all serious offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years. Therefore, Bill C-42 lists specific offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years that would be ineligible for a conditional sentence. These include prison breach, luring a child, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, abduction, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and arson for fraudulent purposes. In addition, once Bill C-26 comes into force, conditional sentences will no longer be available for the proposed offence of auto theft. The bill is presently before the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, conditional sentences are an appropriate sentencing tool in many cases, but their use does need to be restricted when it comes to serious property and serious violent offences. A more prudent use of conditional sentence orders should strengthen confidence in the sanction and the administration of justice.

I'd like to conclude by saying, Mr. Chairman, that passage of Bill C-42 is an important step towards more just sentences that will protect our communities, our families, and respect our sense of justice. The use of conditional sentences for less serious offences and less serious offenders, as was intended when they were first created, will improve public confidence in criminal justice.

I hope this will receive quick consideration by this committee and we'll get this matter back into the House soon.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

First of all, Monsieur Petit, let me thank you for all the work that you have done for the victims. I want to thank you for that leadership role, particularly within the province of Quebec, and your willingness to meet with victims, your empathy with them, your understanding of what they've gone through, and your commitment to do something about the situation that victims find themselves in. It is very commendable and I'm very appreciative of that, as I'm sure all members of the House of Commons are for your work in that area.

You commented on one particular case. I never comment on a particular case, but I will say in general that one of the provisions in this bill is something that I think is of comfort to a lot of people, no matter how long these individuals serve their prison sentence—and we are going about making sure that they do serve substantial time for the heinous crimes they have committed—which is to have the provision in here for the first time that a prohibition order can be issued by a judge for up to life against these individuals, prohibiting them from handling other people's money or finances either on a professional basis or even on a volunteer basis.

As you know, victims will tell us that they know of instances when people who will eventually be released from prison, when they're released, will immediately get back into this kind of business, handling people's money one way or another. This unfortunately is the only business they know, handling people's money and doing it in a fraudulent manner. So to be able to give that prohibition order for up to life against that individual, to prohibit them from dealing with other people's money and making it another offence if they in fact do engage in that, I think are all steps in the right direction.

But you are quite correct that in our discussion with victims we say this is one part of what we are trying to do with this particular piece of legislation. The Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act, this bill, is one part of it, but as I indicated to Monsieur Guimond, our colleague the Minister of Public Safety is coming forward with a bill getting rid of accelerated parole, one-sixth provisions. This is another thing that has considerable appeal among people who want to see justice and fairness in the system. That's one piece of legislation.

But you mention as well Bill C-9 in the previous Parliament, which was to get rid of conditional sentences or house arrest for a whole wide range of serious crimes. I can't speak for the opposition parties—I'm sure they'd want to do that for themselves—but they took out the provisions that related to fraud. So, unfortunately, today, despite the best efforts of people such as you or Mr. Moore, who is the other parliamentary secretary, and our other colleagues here, it's still the law in this country that you can be convicted of serious fraud yet still be eligible for house arrest. We very much disagree with that.

We have introduced the bill again, Bill C-42, which is now before Parliament. I'm hoping that our colleagues in the opposition will reconsider the position they took in the previous Parliament and say they are going to put an end to this; they are going to put an end to people who commit serious crime being eligible to go home after they have been convicted. This is not what Canadians want.

So I thank you for raising that with me, because as you say, when we talk to people who are victims, who are concerned about this area, we always say we have to get this bill passed, this is an important component of what we have to do, but there are other measures, and I assure them and they know by the evidence that we are prepared to help them in other areas. You've identified a couple of those areas and I thank you for that.

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to stand in the House once again on behalf of the constituents of the great Kenora riding. I am honoured to speak during second reading of Bill C-42, which proposes to limit the use of conditional sentencing for serious offences.

The Criminal Code allows for conditional sentences, also referred to as house arrest, to be imposed when the following conditions are met: the offence is not punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence, the court imposes a sentence of less than two years, the court is convinced that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community, and the court must be satisfied that the conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Finally, the offence must meet the following criteria: it is not a serious personal injury offence under section 752; it is not a terrorism offence; and it is not a criminal organization offence, prosecuted by indictment and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more.

Even if all the criteria are met, the sentencing judge may decide not to impose a conditional sentence. Bill C-42 aims to eliminate the reference to serious personal injury offences and end the use of conditional sentences for indictable offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years to life. The same would apply for indictable offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years where these offences result in: bodily harm; involve the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs; or involve the use of a weapon.

Furthermore, in order to cover serious offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, Bill C-42 seeks to eliminate the use of conditional sentences for the following reasons: prison breach, luring a child, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being unlawfully in a dwelling house with intent, and arson for fraudulent purposes. These are obviously very serious crimes that this government intends to get tough on.

I am well aware that my colleagues in the House might ask themselves if it is necessary to amend the conditional sentencing regime once again, especially given that the last amendments to this regime came into effect on December 1, 2007. To them, I would say yes. The concept of serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code of Canada was developed in the context of dangerous offenders.

However, the opposition parties borrowed it as a limit on the use of conditional sentences when they got together to modify the government's original proposal as laid out in Bill C-9. While the courts have, since the last amendments came into effect, distinguished between the interpretation of the definition of serious personal injury offences and the contexts of conditional sentences and dangerous offenders, the fact remains that there are serious shortcomings.

Whether it be in the context of dangerous offenders or in the context of conditional sentences, only sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and aggravated sexual assault are deemed to be serious personal injury offences. I would like to reassure my colleagues that although Bill C-42 proposes to eliminate the reference to serious personal injury offences as laid out in section 742.1, it would still ensure that conditional sentences would not be available for such indictable sexual offences.

However, as we have previously heard, robbery, for example, is not treated as a serious personal injury offence in all cases. This is all the more surprising, given that the offence of robbery, under section 343 of the Criminal Code, includes elements of violence. The same goes for the offences of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

It is also worrying to see that the opposition parties, who favour the definition of serious personal injury offences instead of the proposed government approach, are of the view that only violent offences are serious crimes, and that only violent offences should be subject to limits on the use of conditional sentences.

Need I remind them of the extent of the fraud cases reported in the media recently. Serious white collar crimes that had serious impact on people's lives. Yet, the definition of serious personal injury offences cannot ensure that conditional sentences will not be available in cases of fraud or theft over $5,000. The bill, along with upcoming initiatives, will ensure that cases involving serious fraud are treated as serious offences. They are treated within the law for the serious offences that they are.

Conditional sentences were created for less serious crimes. It is for this reason that it is not available or that it not be available for offences punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence, or for offences for which a sentence of two years or more is imposed. The government is attentive to the concerns of Canadians who no longer wish to see conditional sentences used for serious crimes, whether it is a violent physical crime or a serious property crime. For the reasons I just explained, I would urge my colleagues in the House to give the bill their unanimous support.

I want to address by way of summary some of the key points. Conditional sentences are not available for all offences. There are several criteria for their use. For example, conditional sentences are not available for sentences with a mandatory prison sentence and are not available if the sentence would be more than two years imprisonment.

Bill C-42 fulfills this 2008 platform commitment by restricting the availability of conditional sentences of imprisonment to ensure that serious crimes, including serious property offences, are not eligible for house arrest.

I encourage all members to take a serious moment to pause around what this legislation is intended to achieve. We want to make it clear that when it comes to serious crimes, this government is getting serious with the people who need to do the time.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today in the House to address Bill C-42 regarding conditional sentences.

This legislation fulfills another campaign promise we made in the 2008 election by seeking to restrict the availability of conditional sentencing to ensure that those who commit serious crimes, including serious property offences, are not eligible for house arrest. This is a bill that is desperately needed as we attempt to send a strong message to criminals that serious crime will result in serious time.

My riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale has been near the centre of a violent gang war in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Earlier this year hearing reportings of several shootings in a given week was not uncommon.

Many people, some gang members and some not, have been murdered or seriously injured in our streets this year. This gang warfare appears to be fuelled mostly by the illicit drug trade as rival gangs battle for a share of the profits.

As I am sure all members can appreciate, my constituents are upset and concerned about the extreme violence in our normally peaceful community. They want to know what action we are taking to keep illegal drug producers and pushers off the streets and behind bars. They want to know why criminals convicted of serious drug offences such as running a grow house, who are sometimes repeatedly convicted seem to be back on the street within days of their conviction.

They do not understand why someone convicted of serious crimes, offences often linked to the drug trade or involving a weapon or causing bodily harm, could serve literally no time in prison.

Bill C-42 is part of our answer. Our bill will close the loophole created by the opposition in the last Parliament by ensuring that the time served for all serious crimes is ineligible to be served under house arrest.

The proposed law will clearly state the offences for which the courts cannot hand down a conditional sentence.

This will ensure that the courts use conditional sentences cautiously and more appropriately, reserving them for less serious offences that pose little risk to community safety.

Bill C-42 is needed because our government's previous attempt to prevent the use of house arrest for serious crimes was seriously and significantly weakened by opposition amendments.

In addition to maintaining the existing criteria limiting the availability of house arrest, Bill C-42 would make all offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life ineligible for house arrest. It would make all offences prosecuted by indictment, as well as those punishable by a maximum of 10 years, those resulting in bodily harm or involving the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs, and those involving the use of weapons, ineligible for house arrest. It would also make specific serious property and violent offences ineligible for house arrest.

Here are some of the other offences for which house arrest would be eliminated when prosecuted by indictment: prison breach, luring a child, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping or forcible confinement, trafficking in persons where there is a material benefit, abduction, theft over $5,000, auto theft, breaking and entering with intent, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, or arson for fraudulent purposes.

When I read this list, I am reminded that the last time we debated this issue, these were all crimes for which the Liberals felt that house arrest might be an entirely appropriate punishment. Well, this is no longer the case. Bill C-42 will send the message that drug crime, gun crime and other serious crime will not be tolerated in Surrey or anywhere else in Canada. It will send a message to those engaged in the illegal drug trade in my community that their crimes will no longer be treated with a slap on the wrist.

This bill and other initiatives to come will ensure that cases of serious fraud are treated as serious offences, which includes the proposal in Bill C-42 to prohibit the use of conditional sentences in such cases.

It is also disturbing to note that by promoting the definition of serious personal injury at the expense of the government's approach, the opposition parties are saying that only violent offences are serious and that the limits on the use of conditional sentences should apply only to such offences.

Do I need to remind them of the extent of the frauds recently reported in the media?

Unfortunately, it has become very plain to me that our Conservative Party is the only party that has been willing to stand on principle and ensure that the sentence matches the crime. Opposition parties stall criminal justice reform legislation here in the House or their friends stall it in the Senate.

It is no exaggeration to say that in this Parliament and the last, we have been opposed every step of the way by the Liberals or the NDP and the Bloc as we have attempted to pass even modest reforms to sentencing laws. For instance, the opposition Liberals watered down our bill, Bill C-9 on house arrest, in the last Parliament. Even so, I note that since taking office in 2006, our Conservative government has been making progress on some criminal justice reform, including house arrest, despite the minority situation.

We provided the funds and introduced the legislation that will support our law enforcement bodies and justice system as they attempt to crack down on gun violence and the illegal drug trade. In our first budget, we provided the funds to hire an additional 1,000 RCMP officers and new federal prosecutors to focus on such law enforcement priorities as drugs, corruption, and border security, including gun smuggling.

Also, in our 2006 budget we provided the funds to hire an additional 400 Canada border services officers, to properly arm all of these officers, and to improve border infrastructure and upgrade technology. Our efforts have improved the ability of our Border Services Agency to crack down on the smuggling of firearms and illegal drugs, which are significant problems in our community.

In 2007, we launched the national anti-drug strategy, focusing on prevention, enforcement and treatment. Budget 2007 also provided $64 million over two years to address these priorities.

In budget 2008, we provided $400 million for the police officers recruitment fund, allowing the provinces to recruit an additional 2,500 front-line officers. My province of British Columbia received $53 million of this funding.

In terms of legislation, during the last Parliament we were able to pass bills that addressed the issues of gun and gang violence. Among the resulting measures were increases in the mandatory minimum sentences for various crimes involving firearms and the toughening of dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code.

We also imposed a reverse onus in order for those charged with firearms offences to qualify for bail, and we toughened sentences for street racing and increased the maximum sentence to be life in prison. However, our Conservative government knows that further federal action is necessary to help address the gang violence we have seen on the streets in my community recently.

Our public safety minister, our justice minister and our Prime Minister have all travelled to the Lower Mainland in British Columbia to hear directly from police officials and victims groups about the recent violence. We have listened and responded by introducing the following legislation.

Bill C-14, now law, targets gangs and organized crime groups. Any murder committed in a gang-related context is deemed first degree murder. A new criminal offence carrying a mandatory prison sentence has been created for drive-by shootings.

Bill C-15 cracks down on serious drug crimes, such as trafficking and running large cannabis grow operations or crystal meth labs. Narcotics producers will now face mandatory prison sentences.

In addition, Bill C-25 eliminates the two-for-one credit in sentencing for time spent in pre-trial custody. Of course, the bill that we are debating today, Bill C-42, would eliminate house arrest for all serious crimes, not just some of the offences the opposition begrudgingly allowed us to address in the last Parliament.

For the reasons I have given, I would urge my colleagues in the House to support this bill unanimously in order to expedite its passage.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today during the second reading of Bill C-42, the bill that proposes to limit the use of conditional sentencing for serious offences.

This is an important issue to constituents in my riding of Leeds--Grenville. They take getting tough on criminals very seriously. It is something that I hear constantly when I go around my riding. They are happy that our government has taken a number of initiatives over the last three plus years to get tough on crime.

We have heard from others who seem to have a problem with criminals doing the time for the crime. One could find all kinds of excuses not to support this legislation, but my constituents are happy that the government is finally taking these issues seriously. They are happy that our minister continues to introduce bills and they want to see them pass through Parliament.

My constituents get discouraged when they tune in to find out what is going on in Parliament and find that often these bills are held up by the opposition. Sometimes a bill goes through the House of Commons and then the other place slows down its implementation.

I am happy to rise today to speak in support of this particular bill. My constituents are happy that we have brought this legislation forward.

A conditional sentence is also known as house arrest. House arrest is a relatively new tool in Canadian law and it can be imposed when several conditions are met: first, the offence is not punishable by a mandatory prison sentence; second, the court imposes a sentence of less than two years; third, the court is convinced that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community; fourth, the court must be satisfied that the conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing; and, fifth, the offence meets the following criteria: it is not a serious personal injury offence as in section 752; it is not a terrorism offence; and it is not a criminal organization offence prosecuted by indictment and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more.

Sentencing judges may decide not to impose a conditional sentence even if all of the conditions are met if they feel that justice will not be served with such a sentence.

Bill C-42 would add new, clear provisions to the conditional sentence sections of the Criminal Code to ensure that conditional sentences are not available to individuals who commit serious violent crimes and serious property crimes.

Bill C-42 would remove some of the sentencing latitude that is now available for some of these offences. It would end conditional sentences for indictable offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life.

This legislation would also apply to indictable offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years where the offences result in bodily harm; involve the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs; or involve the use of a weapon.

In order to cover serious offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, Bill C-42 seeks to eliminate the use of conditional sentences for: prison breach, luring a child, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being unlawfully in a dwelling house with intent, and arson for fraudulent purposes.

As has been explained, conditional sentences were never intended for very violent or serious crimes but rather for less serious offences. They were designed to be used in cases where offenders would be better served by doing soft time in surroundings where they could be rehabilitated.

Unfortunately, not all sentencing courts have interpreted the availability of conditional sentences in the same manner. Consequently, many, including some provinces and territories, became increasingly concerned with the wide array of offences that resulted in conditional sentencing of imprisonment.

It is not just the courts that are concerned. Citizens, like those I spoke of from my riding of Leeds—Grenville and across Canada, are echoing those concerns. Residents of my riding of Leeds—Grenville, as I said before, continue to talk to me about these issues. They are very important to them.

I am happy to be standing up here today in support of another one of those initiatives. In their eyes the laws are not working properly. We need to look at them and make changes where necessary.

The best way to deal with the ambiguity is through the bill, which provides clear definitions of what crimes are not punishable with a conditional sentence. We attempted to do that months before with Bill C-9 in 2006. That bill was amended by the opposition. Bill C-9, in its original form, proposed a new criterion that would have eliminated the availability of a conditional sentence for offences punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more, and prosecuted by indictment. This would have caught serious crimes, including designated violent and sexual offences, weapons offences, offences committed against children, and serious property crimes such as fraud and theft over $5,000.

Just last week we were dealing with another bill to do with penalties for serious property and theft crimes over $5,000. I was happy to have spoken on that bill as well.

However, opposition members of the justice committee, when they were dealing with Bill C-9, left it too open and too broad. The opposition voted to amend the legislation to only capture terrorism offences, organized crime offences, and serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code that are punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment.

Because of the changes imposed by the opposition on Bill C-9, it has become clear that the current conditional sentencing regime still fails to categorically make conditional sentences ineligible for many, very serious crimes.

My colleagues in the House might be asking themselves if it is necessary to amend the conditional sentencing regime once again, since the last amendments came into effect on December 1, 2007. The answer to that is a resounding yes. The concept of serious personal injury offences defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code was developed in the context of dangerous offenders. However, the opposition parties borrowed this as a limit on the use of conditional sentences when they modified the government's original proposal in Bill C-9 .

This has resulted in more confusion in sentencing in the eyes of the general public where, for example, people found guilty of such crimes as assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm receive conditional sentences. My constituents want to see a stop put to that. Serious property crimes in which fraud is committed against victims who have no recourse and receive no restitution for their often devastating loss bring the offender a conditional sentence.

We appear to be allowing criminals who do serious harm to others, physically or even monetarily, to serve their time in comfort. Once again, this is something that my constituents find very offensive.

Sentences are supposed reflect our society's abhorrence of the crime. What are we telling our citizens and those who commit crimes, when we send criminals, who wilfully and knowingly do harm to others, away to serve a conditional sentence?

I often speak about this in the House when we bring forward legislation that introduces mandatory prison sentences. When we introduce mandatory prison sentences, we are doing two things. We are attempting to show those who would commit those crimes that there will be a price to pay and that if they commit those crimes, they will serve the time. We are also attempting to use these mandatory prison sentences as a deterrent so that those who are thinking about committing such crimes will think twice before doing so.

Conditional sentences are an appropriate sentencing tool in many cases, but they do not need to be restricted when it comes to serious property and serious violent offences. Conditional sentences were created for less serious crimes. It is for this reason that they are not available for offences punishable by a mandatory prison sentence or for offences for which a sentence of two years or more is imposed.

We need to ask ourselves why conditional sentences were created.

Before conditional sentences were created in 1996, offenders who were declared by the courts to pose no threat to society were generally punished with sentences of less than two years in a provincial institution or suspended sentences with probation.

However, probation orders and other alternatives to incarceration placed—and still place—fewer restrictions on freedom and do not allow judges to order that offenders undergo treatment. There is no quick way to convert a probation order into a sentence of detention in the event the offender breaches the conditions of the sentence.

Conditional sentences were therefore created as an alternative to the sentences that could be imposed on this sort of offenders. The courts could quickly convert a conditional sentence into a sentence of detention, set limits on the offender's freedom and require the offender to undergo treatment.

A conditional sentence cannot be accompanied by parole or a sentence reduction.

As I said before, Bill C-42 is something that my constituents and many Canadians look forward to seeing go through this House. Bill C-42 fulfills a 2008 platform commitment made by our party seeking to restrict the availability of conditional sentences of imprisonment to ensure that serious crimes, including serious property offences, are not eligible for house arrest. In addition to the existing criteria limiting the availability of conditional sentences, Bill C-42 would deal with many of the things which I already spoke about.

These amendments are really needed, because the government's previous attempts to prevent the use of conditional sentences for any indictable offence punishable by a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment or more, which we brought forward in Bill C-9, were significantly weakened by opposition amendments to restrict the availability of those conditional sentences only for those 10 years or more offences, which were terrorism offences, something which I learned a lot about when we were dealing with the Anti-terrorism Act in the last Parliament.

The problem with the current law, as a result of the opposition amendment, is that the definition of serious personal injury offences lacks that true, needed clarity. It is really not certain whether particular serious property or serious violent offences such as wilful mischief, endangering life, causing bodily harm by criminal negligence, or serious drug offences would be interpreted as serious personal injury offences and therefore ineligible for a conditional sentence in all cases.

Bill C-42 addresses these flaws by providing a much more consistent and rational approach for the offences which cannot receive a conditional sentence.

Canadian citizens have many questions about this bill. They want to know whether the reform we are bringing forward in this bill will modify the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing. This reform does not propose to modify or change the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing contained in the Criminal Code. However, with respect to serious matters, it is going to require the courts to focus on the objectives of denunciation, incapacitation and general deterrence which I spoke about a little earlier.

Some might ask why we want to eliminate the reference to serious personal injury offences from the conditional sentencing regime, which is section 742.1, when the amendments brought forward by Bill C-9 in the 39th Parliament came into force just 18 months ago. As I said before, the reference to serious personal injury offences in section 742.1, a term originally intended to apply to the dangerous and long-term offender provisions of the Criminal Code, was the result of the efforts by the opposition and its amendment to Bill C-9. The reference to serious personal injury offences in section 742.1 does not clearly establish those limits on the availability of conditional sentences for serious and violent crimes.

Some also want to know if this amendment to the bill covers offences that are prosecuted by summary conviction. This reform focuses on the most serious cases, those cases that Canadians find most offensive, that were eligible for this conditional sentencing. Those cases which are generally indictable offences and carry a 10 year plus maximum sentence can also be prosecuted by summary conviction where the maximum sentence is much lower. In those cases where police and prosecutors exercise their discretion to proceed summarily, conditional sentences will still be available in those cases. The justice system must rely upon police and prosecutors using summary conviction charges in appropriate cases.

One thing that I was concerned about with the bill was whether all sexual assault cases would be ineligible for a conditional sentence. This reform will restrict the use of conditional sentences for all sexual assault offences that are prosecuted by indictment and punishable by 10 years or more of imprisonment. Consequently, sexual assault cases that are prosecuted by summary conviction will still be eligible for a conditional sentence order.

I have confidence in police and prosecutors using summary conviction charges only in appropriate cases. The offence of sexual assault covers a wide range of conduct, and not to allow conditional sentences at the very low end of that range would not be in the interests of the administration of justice.

I urge all members to support the bill moving on to committee. This is something which the constituents in my riding of Leeds—Grenville take very seriously. They are very happy that the government is taking action. I urge all members to get behind the bill and stand up and vote in favour of it.

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and other Serious Crimes Act

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to speak to this legislation from the perspective of the context in which we have to address it and the attempt by the government, in a very undemocratic fashion, to do an end run around a vote that took place in the House approximately three years ago on the precursor bill, Bill C-9, which the government brought in shortly after it was elected in 2006. It was the first crime bill that the Conservatives brought in.

In the 2006 election, both the Conservatives and the NDP ran their platform around the issue of eliminating the use of conditional sentences for serious violent crimes. That was the terminology, and it was almost identical in both party platforms.

Bill C-9 came forward, but that was not what it attempted to do. As so often happens with the Conservative Party, it was a huge over-reach.

Bill C-9 would have eliminated the use of conditional sentences for 40 or 45 sections of the Criminal Code. Were these sections all dealing with serious violent crime? We have to remember that the Conservatives promised Canadians in their platform to eliminate conditional sentences.

There were sections in there about altering data in a computer. That was an offence and the conditional sentence would no longer be used after that kind of conviction. There were sections about forging a testamentary document. It was the same thing. That is not a violent crime. There was a whole list of these.

Accurately, as was described by some members who spoke earlier, the combined opposition parties moved to bring the bill to committee. We in the NDP told Canadians that we would remove the use of conditional sentences for serious violent crimes, and we did that, and then we eliminated the other sections. We complied with what we had said to Canadians. We were quite happy to do that because it was what we had promised. We accomplished one of the promises we had made to the electorate.

Bill C-9 came back to the House and a substantial majority voted for it. I think the Conservatives might even have voted for it, but I cannot remember. I should have checked that. The bill went on to the Senate where it was approved and became law and is law to this day. That was a promise made and a promise kept, as opposed to what the Conservatives would have wanted to do.

Following the way of their straight partisan politics, the Conservatives have now decided to bring Bill C-42 forward, along with many other bills, and are attempting to convince the Canadian people that they are tough on crime. I would like to emphasize toughness not smartness.

It was interesting to note the evidence that came out in the course of the debate in committee on Bill C-9 and to a lesser degree when it came back to the House. I remember both the justice minister and the minister for public safety and national security appeared before committee. In both cases they were asked if they knew how many more people were going to be incarcerated and if they knew how much that was going to cost.

Let me digress on this point and explain how conditional sentences work. A judge has to determine that he or she would not sentence a person eligible for a conditional sentence to incarceration in an institution for more than two years. In effect, they would be sentenced, if they were going to be incarcerated, to a period of time of two years less a day. If anybody understands the system in this country, all of those sentences of two years less a day are served in provincial prisons.

Let me go back to the two questions of whether they knew how much it was going to cost and did they know how many were going to be put in? In both cases, the ministers did not know.

I and some of my colleagues from the other parties dug out that information regarding that long list of 45 offences that may no longer be eligible for conditional sentences. All those people would then go to jail for two years less a day. I want to be clear on this. This was information that came from within the Department of Justice. Let me repeat that. The source of this information in writing was the Department of Justice. It turns out that 5,000 more people would be put in provincial jails. Of course, the ministers did not have to worry about that, did they? Not a dime of that was coming out of the federal coffers. They were just dumping this problem of 5,000 more inmates on the provincial system.

Knowing how much it costs per year for an inmate, we estimated that those 5,000 additional inmates in our prisons at the provincial level would cost the provinces in the range of $250 million to $500 million a year. There are many provinces that would like to be able to spend that money.

Because there was no way that the provincial systems could accommodate 5,000 additional inmates with their existing number of beds, there would have to be additions built on to the existing provincial institutions or new ones built. The estimate of what it would cost for capital was in the order of $1.5 billion to $2 billion. Is the federal government going to contribute any of that? Were those two ministers going to have to take it out of their budgets? Absolutely not.

It is important to understand that context because we are faced with the same situation with this bill. If I asked the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Public Safety, who is responsible for corrections, they would not be able to tell me. They would not be able to give me an answer. I am absolutely convinced of that. In fact, last week in the Globe and Mail we saw the article and the editorial attacking the government for refusing to disclose what information it has and what analysis it has done.

I want to be very clear. The analysis that the Minister of Public Safety has done has not taken into account the drug bill that has gone through the House and is sitting in the other place waiting for passage. If that bill and this one pass, he has not done an analysis of how many more inmates there would be. He has not done that.

In spite of the fact that we hear constantly from the Minister of Justice that he keeps being reassured by the Minister of Public Safety that we have lots of space in our federal prisons, it does not matter. He is wrong, by the way, and I am going to come back to that in a second. It does not matter because these people, under Bill C-42, are all going to go into the provincial system.

It was interesting to hear two of my colleagues, one from my party in Quebec and one from the Liberal Party in New Brunswick in the last couple of days tell me that the judges at the provincial level have been told not to send people to jail for weekends because the provincial institutions no longer have space for any of them. They have to put them on probation. That is the reality of what we are faced with at the provincial level and it is true in every single province and territory in this country.

We have signed international protocols that require us to have one inmate per cell. We are breaching that international protocol as much as 50% of the time, particularly at the provincial level but also at the federal level.

Let us go back to the federal system and the assurances—I wanted to use a term that is unparliamentary and I am looking for a synonym—that lack credibility from the Minister of Public Safety.

The head of Correctional Service of Canada, Mr. Don Head, has made it very clear at committee hearings and in the public press in the last month that we do not have the capacity at the federal level, that we are regularly double-bunking, and triple-bunking in some cases, per cell. We are not meeting our international requirements and promises we have made. We do not have that capacity.

Last week the Globe and Mail attacked the minister and the government, because the minister is refusing to disclose the analysis he had done and how much it will cost. That does not take into account these two bills, the one that is before us today and the drug bill that is before the other place right now.

Because of the information we do have up to this point and we will get more, and with the support of the Liberals the bill will obviously go to committee, we will be voting against it. I am quite comfortable in saying that we will see similar numbers, 5,000-plus inmates being incarcerated in our prisons, if this legislation and the drug bill go through. Let me repeat that it will cost the provinces hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It will cost the provinces a huge amount of capital dollars.

It will depend on what our judges do with it. They may say that they cannot send convicts to provincial jails any more, so they may move the sentence up to two years plus a day, or two and a half years or three years and they would then go into the federal system. That would severely impact on the number of inmates at the federal level. It is a realistic possibility, if not a probability, that our judges will start to do that.

I want to make one more point about the cost issue. We always hear from the Conservatives, which is partly why the Liberals run scared on it, that we are soft on crime. I want to use an example in the United States. I think we could argue that most of the states, and Texas and a couple of other southern states in the U.S. may be ahead of them, but California has led the way in throwing people into prison in huge numbers.

Just so we are clear on that, our incarceration rate in Canada is about one-seventh of what it is in the United States. However, it is also the highest of the western democracies after the United States. Japan has an incarceration rate of roughly 60 per 100,000 population. Ours right now is running at about 110 to 120, in those ratios, which is almost double that of Japan. Western democracies in Europe, Australia and New Zealand are running 80 to 90 per 100,000. The United States is running 700-plus per 100,000.

California was one of the states that led the way in getting tough on crime, with the right-wing Reagan-Bush type of agenda, followed very closely by the Conservative Party in this country. In the last few months, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of California, that person who is really soft on crime, has been compelled to begin to release--he is doing it himself; he has to sign each one of them--thousands of inmates on early parole, including a large number who had been convicted and were serving time for serious violent crime, because the state can no longer afford to pay for it. The prison costs in California exceed what the state spends on post-secondary education. It is part of the bankruptcy with which that state is confronted right now. In order to deal with that, he is having to release thousands of inmates on early parole.

That is a very clear model of what would happen if we follow the agenda followed by the United States and the State of California, which the governing party wants us to follow. I want to juxtapose that with the use of conditional sentences. What came out very clearly in the review of Bill C-9 two and a half years ago was that it is working.

The Conservatives come up with these individual cases where our courts clearly can be said to have overused the conditional sentence. We can always find those cases.

I am a great defender of our judiciary. Having practised law all those years, having analyzed our judges and having analyzed judges in a whole bunch of other countries, I firmly believe that we have the best judges in the world. However, they are human. They make mistakes. We should not be deriving from those mistakes principles that guide us on how we are going to pass legislation around convictions, around sentencing. That should not be the way we do it.

What we should do is look at what has happened since we brought in conditional sentences. It was very clear from the evidence that we took in the review of Bill C-9 that it is working. The recidivism rate is about one-third what it is versus those we incarcerate, 30-plus per cent of those we incarcerate, down around 10% and in some cases, depending on what the charges are and what the convictions are for, as low as 8% and up to 12%, but on average, around 10% or 11% is the recidivism rate.

We hear the anecdotal stories and we hear people say that they are standing up for the victims. What they are standing up for is a system that is going to victimize more people down the road because 30% of the inmates are going to become recidivists and are going to go back and commit oftentimes more serious crimes than the ones they first went in for. We know that prisons train people to do that. Where are they in terms of defending those victims, the future ones who inevitably are going to be a result of these types of policies?

We are going to be voting against this bill at second reading. If the bill gets through the committee and comes back to the House, we are going to be voting against it at third reading. This legislation is the wrong approach. It is going to victimize a large number of additional Canadians as opposed to the alternative of what we have now. It is very clear that as our violent crime rate continues to drop, a good deal of that is because we began using a number of principles around restorative justice, including conditional sentences. Our system is working.

It is interesting. I sat for a number of years on the public safety and national security committee. People from all over the world came to look at what we were doing because our system was working. They were seeing us drop our violent crime rate. They were seeing that we were moving quite dramatically away from the U.S. experience and that it was working. Conditional sentencing was one of the things they would come to take a close look at to see how it worked. In many cases, I understand, they are beginning to look at implementing it in other countries that were not using it before they saw ours.

It is a system that works. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Are our judges human? Yes, they are. Do they make mistakes? Absolutely, they make mistakes. However, it is still the best system, and it is far superior to what is being proposed under this legislation.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to debate Bill C-42, ending conditional sentences for property and other serious crimes act. As the name of the bill indicates, further reforms are needed to ensure that conditional sentences are not imposed for serious crimes.

Conditional sentences of imprisonment came into force over 13 years ago, with the proclamation in 1996 of Bill C-41, Sentencing Reform, Chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1995.

Bill C-41 created a new sentencing part of the Criminal Code. Among its key elements were the creation of conditional sentences as a new sentencing option, the first ever parliamentary statement of the purpose and principles of sentencing, referred to as section 718 to section 718.2, and increased emphasis on the interest of crime victims, including the recognition that the harm done to victims should be considered at sentencing.

A conditional sentence of imprisonment is a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years that a court may permit an offender to serve in the community under conditions and supervision. Originally a conditional sentence was available to sentencing courts provided that the following prerequisites were present: the sentence was less than two years; the court was satisfied that allowing the offender to serve the sentence of imprisonment in the community would not endanger the safety of the community; and the offence could not be punishable by a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.

Shortly after implementation, a requirement was added that the court be satisfied that sentencing the offender to serve a conditional sentence of imprisonment was consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code. This was designed to respond to concerns that courts were awarding conditional sentence orders for quite serious offences.

In 2000 the Supreme Court of Canada held, in Regina v. Proulx, that the conditional sentencing regime did not exclude any category of offences other than those with a minimum period of incarceration. Nor was there a presumption for or against its use for any category of offence. The court stated, however, that it was open to Parliament to introduce such limitations.

Conditional sentences were never intended for very violent or serious crimes, but rather for less serious offences. The problem has been that not all sentencing courts have interpreted the availability of conditional sentences in the same manner, no consistency. Consequently many, including some provinces and territories became increasingly concerned with the wide array of offences that resulted in conditional sentences of imprisonment.

Over the years questionable conditional sentencing decisions have contributed to a loss of public confidence in the sanction and therefore in the administration of justice.

This government responded to these concerns when it tabled Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) on May 4, 2006. Bill C-9 was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on June 6, 2006.

Bill C-9 in its original form proposed a new criterion that would have eliminated the availability of conditional sentences for offences punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment. This would have caught serious crimes, including designated violent and sexual offences, weapons offences, offences committed against children and serious property crimes such as fraud and theft over $5,000.

However, opposition members of the justice committee thought that the scope of Bill C-9 was too broad. The opposition voted to amend this legislation to only capture terrorism offences, organized crime offences and serious personal injury offences, as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code, which are punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment. This was similar to the approach in Bill C-70, which the previous government had tabled in the fall of 2005, but which died on the order paper with the call of the general election. Our government's attempt at report stage to reinstate Bill C-9 to its original form was defeated by the three opposition parties.

As is the case with other sentencing options, a conditional sentence must be considered in the context of the entire sentencing regime and especially the principles of sentencing.

Section 718 of the code states:

The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;

(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and

(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

The preconditions for a conditional sentence, along with the deemed aggravating factors added to the Criminal Code by Bill C-42, such as evidence that the offender abused a position of trust, for example, were designed to screen out serious offences committed in circumstances for which denunciation, general deterrence and incapacitation should be considered the primary sentencing objectives.

In addition, the fundamental principal of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. I find it hard to believe that this fundamental principle is being properly observed when a conditional sentence is imposed for serious violent or serious property offences.

Accordingly it is my view that the current conditional sentencing regime still fails to categorically make conditional sentences ineligible for many serious crimes. In addition to excluding terrorism and criminal organization offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by 10 years or more, the Criminal Code also excludes serious personal injury offences from the availability of a conditional sentence.

The term “serious personal injury offence” was designed for dangerous and long-term offenders. It was borrowed to serve as a limit to the availability of conditional sentences by the amendments of the opposition parties to Bill C-9. A serious personal injury offence is defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code as:

(a) an indictable offence, other than high treason, treason, first degree murder or second degree murder, involving

(i) the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or

(ii) conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage on another person,

and for which the offender may be sentenced to imprisonment for ten years or more, or

(b) an offence or attempt to commit an offence mentioned in section 271 (sexual assault), 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm) or 273 (aggravated sexual assault).

Only the sexual assault offences referred to in paragraph 752(b) of the Criminal Code are explicitly ineligible for a conditional sentence order if prosecuted by indictment. A finding that other offences fit the definition of serious personal injury offence will depend on the circumstances of each case.

Up until the coming into force of Bill C-9 on December 1, 2007, sentencing courts had only to interpret serious personal injury offence for the purpose of determining whether the threshold for a dangerous or long-term offender application had been met according to part 24 of the Criminal Code, because that term was defined only for the dangerous and long-term offender provisions.

Since Bill C-9 came into force, courts have wrestled with the interpretation of serious personal injury offences in the context of conditional sentences. The Alberta Court of Appeal in Ponticorvo, 2009 reviewed its decision in Neve, 1999, where it had considered the definition of serious personal injury offence in the context of dangerous offender provisions.

In that context, the court concluded that section 752 required that the offence considered be objectively serious. However, in the context of conditional sentences, the Court of Appeal found that the use or attempted use of violence sufficed and did not require any overlay of objective seriousness. In other words, it ruled that it should be easier for the Crown to establish that an offence was a serious personal injury offence, or SPIO, in the context of a conditional sentence than it was in the context of a dangerous offender.

The Bill C-9 case law only deals with crimes committed after December 1, 2007, when the legislation came into force, so there is really not a large number of reported cases commenting on the serious personal injury offences in the conditional sentencing context.

The decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal should have resulted in a more consistent application of the definition of serious personal injury offence within the conditional sentencing regime, which would have ensured that similar offences be treated as serious personal injury offences and therefore ineligible for house arrest or conditional sentencing.

While this approach has been followed in a majority of cases, unfortunately this has not always been the case. For instance, in both R. v. Becker, 2009, a decision of the Alberta Provincial Court, and in R. v. Thompson, 2009, a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice, courts were asked to determine whether robbery was a serious personal injury offence in the context of the availability of conditional sentences. In both cases, threats were made, yet in only one of the two cases did the court find that robbery met the definition of serious personal injury offences.

I can tell the House from my personal experience, having been involved with victims of robbery, that it is a serious offence every time it occurs to a person who is in the position of victim.

In R. v. Grewal and Grewal, 2009, a decision of the British Columbia Provincial Court, the court sentenced two accused to conditional sentence orders for the offences of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm. The accused ambushed the victim on his front lawn, hitting him with a shovel and a fireplace poker. The victim required 10 to 20 stitches in his head, suffered broken teeth and neck, arm, thigh and hip pain. What happened? We have already seen in that case how it was not consistent with the rest of the sentencing principles.

In R. v. Prakash, 2009, a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice, the offender was convicted of unlawfully being in a dwelling house, uttering a threat, mischief under $5,000, criminal harassment, impaired driving and breach of a probation order. To me these are serious offences. After taking into account credit for pre-sentencing custody at a two-for-one rate, the offender was sentenced to one day in prison for the offences of impaired driving and breach of a probation order. He then got an additional 12 month conditional sentence on the remaining offences.

I cannot even imagine what the victims were thinking upon hearing those kinds of sentences.

Another concern with only barring serious personal injury offences from the conditional sentence option is that serious property crime such as fraud could still be eligible for a conditional sentence. We are well aware of recent examples of the devastating impact of fraud. Victims who have lost their life savings have called very recently for strengthened sentences for these types of crimes. It is hard to disagree with these concerns, especially considering the fact that fraud, which is punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years, is still technically eligible for a conditional sentence, despite the amendments brought forward by our government's previous Bill C-9.

Our government intends to address this in Bill C-42 and in future legislation dealing with sentences for fraud.

Another consequence to the opposition's amendments to Bill C-9, our earlier bill to restrict conditional sentences, is that offences contained in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act were not excluded unless committed as part of a criminal organization. Consequently, the production, importation and trafficking of a schedule 1 drug such as heroin would not be caught and would be eligible for a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

However, as hon. members would know, the government has proposed mandatory minimum penalties for serious drug offences in Bill C-15. I therefore expect that when that legislation is passed and enacted into law, as I hope will soon be the case, these offences would be ineligible for a conditional sentence.

It is clear to me, and I suggest to many Canadians, that greater clarity and consistency is needed as to the availability of conditional sentences for serious, violent and serious property offences. For these reasons, Bill C-42 proposes to eliminate the reference to serious personal injury offences in subsection 742.1 and make all offences punishable by 14 years or life ineligible for a conditional sentence. This would make the offence of fraud and many other crimes ineligible for a conditional sentence.

Bill C-42 would also clearly make offences prosecuted by indictment; those punishable by 10 years' imprisonment; those that result in bodily harm; those that involve import, export, trafficking or production of drugs, or those that involve the use of a weapon ineligible for a conditional sentence.

While this element of the legislation will significantly limit the ambit of the conditional sentence regime, the addition of these categories would not capture all serious offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years. Therefore, Bill C-42 also proposes a list of 11 specific offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years that would be ineligible for a conditional sentence.

These offences are prison breach, luring a child, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, abduction, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and arson for fraudulent purposes.

Conditional sentences are an appropriate sentencing tool in many cases, but they do need to be restricted when it comes to serious property offences and serious violent offences. The prudent use of conditional sentence orders should strengthen confidence in the sanction and in the administration of justice.

I hope that all hon. members in the House will support Bill C-42 in its entirety.

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Abbotsford is an able chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. It is a pleasure to work with him on these issues.

I do not share his pessimism when he says that for once the Liberal Party has done the right thing. I am much more optimistic than the member for Abbotsford. We in the Liberal Party have done the right thing many more times than once. Hopefully, he will continue to work with us and come to that conclusion on his own. He mentioned Bill C-9 in the previous Parliament. He and I were lucky enough to serve in the previous Parliament as well.

I hope I do not stand to be corrected on this because I am going by memory, but I study these justice bills very attentively any time they are introduced and read a great deal about each justice measure that the government introduces. This was a bill from the previous Parliament and I want to ensure my recollection is accurate.

One of the problems that I remember with the previous legislation was that the Conservatives at the time proposed to restrict the use of conditional sentences any time somebody was prosecuted by way of indictment. That was overly broad. They were removing from judges, as they are prone to do, a number of tools important for the rehabilitation of offenders.

They have seen the light and perhaps in this case done the right thing and brought in a more restricted bill, which eliminates the use of conditional sentences in cases where the public clearly would not understand the concept of house arrest. That is why this time, because of the changes they made, we are happy to work with them in the interest of improving public safety.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his work on the justice committee. He and I both serve on that committee and we were also both part of the 39th Parliament.

He will, of course, recall that in the 39th Parliament it was our Conservative government that actually introduced Bill C-9, which dealt specifically with eliminating conditional sentences, house arrest, for the very crimes we are debating in the House today. Yet, it was his Liberal Party that was part of the effort in the House to gut Bill C-9 and take out all of the offences that did not involve serious personal injury.

There was obviously a conversion on the road to Damascus for the Liberal Party along the way because it supports it now. I want to commend it. It is doing the right thing, for once.

I would ask the member, what is it that changed between the 39th Parliament and the 40th Parliament that would now compel the Liberals to support what clearly is good legislation and was also good legislation back then but yet back then they did not support it?

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-42, which would further and severely restrict the availability of one of the most innovative but certainly controversial elements of our sentencing law, the conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Before describing the key provisions of the bill, please allow me to take a few moments to discuss the origin, history and rationale for conditional sentencing.

In June 1994, Bill C-41, Canada's first comprehensive reform and modernization of sentencing law and procedures since 1892 was introduced into this very House of Commons. Among its many elements was the creation of the conditional sentence of imprisonment. What this meant was that for a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years a court could and may order that it be served in the community under certain conditions and under supervision. It could only be done under the statutory conditions, such as the court being satisfied that the offender could serve the sentence in the community without endangering the population at large.

In other words, the conditional sentence was aimed at low-risk offenders sentenced to a provincial reformatory for a period of time of two years or less.

When Bill C-41 was tabled, Canada was in the midst of an unprecedented increase in the growth of prison populations, both provincially and federally. The federal inmate population, that is those serving periods of sentences of two years or more, was growing at twice the average long-term rate, with a 21.5% increase in the number of federal prisoners from 1990 to 1995. During that time, federal correctional costs exceeded $1 billion for the first time.

Canada's incarceration rate of 130 prisoners per 100,000 citizens was the fourth highest in the western world, which was quite alarming. Therefore, in the 1995 budget the then minister of finance for the then Liberal government had urged federal and provincial ministers responsible for justice to develop strategies to “for containing the growth of the inmate population and the associated corrections cost therewith”.

The Speech from the Throne in 1996 promised that the federal government would develop alternatives to incarceration for low-risk offenders, while focusing the more expensive “correctional resources” on the high-risk offenders.

This direction resulted in the establishment of a multi-year federal-provincial-territorial process called “The Corrections Population Growth Exercise”. Bill C-41, as it was introduced in that Parliament, and the conditional sentences in particular were seen as key to Canada's response to the significant growth in the number of prisoners.

A special study of the impact of conditional sentencing on prison populations was conducted by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics in 2001. In the words of highly noted and renowned Professors Julian Roberts and Thomas Gabor of the University of Ottawa, in a 2002 article in the Canadian Criminal Law Review, the results reveal:

—that conditional sentencing has had a significant impact on the rates of admission to custody, which have declined by 13% since its introduction. This represents a reduction of approximately 55,000 offenders who otherwise would have been admitted to custody.

In a subsequent article published in the British Journal of Criminology, Professor Roberts, by this time at Oxford University, described conditional sentences as leading to the most successful decarceration exercise in the history of common law sentencing reform.

While the availability of conditional sentences arguably achieved the policy of restraint in the use of incarceration, it did so at considerable cost to the public faith in sentencing and the sentencing process.

Controversy has surrounded the conditional sentencing regime since its introduction. The sentence is seen by some as being too soft a disposition for offenders who are custody bound because it is no more severe or intrusive than a sentence of probation. As the legislation reads, the differences between probation and a conditional sentence are barely noticeable. The courts, moreover, may be unwilling to hand down conditional sentences in most cases because of that very perception, that if probation would be an appropriate sentence then the conditional sentence is probably inappropriate.

Some critics of conditional sentencing go so far as to say that the stated goal of conditional sentences, which was to reduce incarceration rates, had failed due to the problems it presented to the judiciary in properly applying conditional sentences. In fact, there is a series of appellate jurisprudence on conditional sentencing, and I will not give a law lecture today, but I invite any hon. members who are interested in the courts struggling with conditional sentences to read the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of 2000 in R. v. Proulx.

However, conditional sentences have been appropriately used in many cases, but there have been too many examples of a failure by the courts to balance the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence with the desire to rehabilitate an offender.

Due to legislation that allowed for those individuals convicted of serious offences to receive conditional sentences such as house arrest, judges have been handing down sentences all too frequently. This practice has caused an enormous loss of confidence in the judicial system by the public. We are here to serve the public and when the public loses confidence in the administration of justice, all hon. members ought to be concerned. The answer to this problem is to give judges guidance in sentencing matters.

There has been more than one legislative attempt to do so and to provide greater guidance to judges who are considering a conditional sentence. Members who have been here longer than I will recall Bill C-9 introduced by this Conservative government on May 4, 2006, which ultimately passed on May 31, 2007. However, sadly, it did not pass unamended.

The bill, as it was originally written, would have ensured that conditional sentences like house arrest would not be allowed for serious and violent crimes. However, sadly the bill was amended by the opposition parties in the justice and human rights committee. The amendments preserved conditional sentences for crimes such as possession of weapons for dangerous purposes, kidnapping, arson and impaired driving causing bodily harm and death.

Criminals who commit these crimes should be punished appropriately and, in my view, serve their time in prison. By restricting these crimes from conditional sentencing eligibility, Canadians will have a justice system that imposes sentences that fit the severity of the offence, properly deters serious offences and helps keep our streets safe.

With that history lesson, it brings me to Bill C-42, the bill which under consideration before the House this afternoon. The bill would add new, clear provisions to the conditional sentencing sections of the Criminal Code to ensure once and for all that conditional sentences would not be available to individuals who committed serious violent and serious property crimes.

The proposed reforms would ban the use of conditional sentences for the following: offences for which the law prescribes a maximum sentence of 14 years or life; offences prosecuted by indictment and for which the law prescribes a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years that result in bodily harm, involve the import/export, trafficking and production of drugs or involve the use of weapons.

It would also ban the use of conditional sentences for the following offences when prosecuted by indictment: prison breach; luring a child; criminal harassment; sexual assault; kidnapping and forceable confinement; trafficking in persons for material benefit; abduction; theft over $5,000; auto theft; breaking; entering with intent; being unlawfully in a dwelling house; and arson for fraudulent purpose.

It is expectation of our government that when this legislation comes into force the conditional sentencing regime will provide the correct equilibrium between the punitive and rehabilitative objectives of sentencing of low risk and less serious offenders.

In doing so, it should provide improved public confidence in the sanction and in the criminal justice system generally. It will send the correct message to both criminals and the law-abiding public at large that those who commit serious and violent crimes will no longer be entitled to conditional sentences such as house arrest.

Imagine an individual being convicted of arson and being able to serve the time in the comfort of that person's own home. It is barely imaginable. However, after the passage of this bill, this misguided sentencing practice will no longer occur in Canada.

On this side of the House we do not believe that house arrest is a suitable punishment for serious crime. Canadians I have spoken to do not believe so, either. Too many criminals, in my view, should never have been given conditional sentences in the first place. Moreover, too many convicts have breached the terms of those conditional sentences.

The solicitor general of Saskatchewan reports that 39% of criminals sentenced to house arrest were returned to jail for breaching the conditions of their sentences. Statistics Canada reported in 2006 that over 11,150 criminals were serving conditional sentences, 2,791 of whom were convicted of violent crimes, crimes against a person, 3,619 were convicted of property crimes and 2,062 were convicted of drug trafficking.

In my view and in the view of my colleagues on this side of the House, there are too many cases where individuals convicted of serious and violent crimes are serving conditional sentences. Criminals who commit these crimes should be punished appropriately and serve time in prison. By restricting these crimes from conditional sentencing eligibility, Canadians will have a justice system that imposes sentences that fit the severity of the crime, that properly deter others from committing serious offences and, most important, promotes safe streets and safe communities.

As I conclude my comments, I would like to remind all members of the House that they have a choice. A previous Liberal government introduced conditional sentencing that allowed serious and violent crimes to be eligible. In the last Parliament, the Liberal, New Democrat and Bloc opposition opposed previous legislation to end the practice of allowing serious and violent criminals to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own homes. However, this Conservative government is trying to ensure that serious criminals spend time where they belong: in jail.

Our government believes that the justice system should put the rights of law-abiders before the rights of lawbreakers. Whatever the leader of the official opposition may say when the cameras are on him, the record shows that the Liberal opposition members are soft on crime.

We call on the Liberals, both in this House and in the Senate, and all parliamentarians of all political stripes to listen to Canadians, to listen to their constituents and to walk the walk, not just talk the talk when it comes to being tough on crime. It is time for all parliamentarians to get behind the government's urgently needed safe street and safe community agenda, and for that reason I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-42.

Criminal Code

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon who sat on the justice committee for a number of years with me and saw this going on with the government. Let me answer his question by addressing one bill specifically because it is coming back. The Conservatives are trying to rejuvenate it and it is the conditional sentencing bill. In terms of taking advice or researching the background of the bill and the reasons why we have conditional sentences in this country, the Conservatives are trying to make these blunt changes without having any understanding of the consequences, mostly to the provinces, or they are simply not caring about the consequences.

Bill C-9 was the bill introduced early in 2006 shortly after the Conservatives were elected and that bill was going to create a situation where about 5,000 more people were going to spend an extra year in jail than they were currently spending. From the process we went through with the minister in front of the committee, I think we even had the public safety minister take a look at this in terms of responding to a question, neither of those ministers had any idea of what the consequences were going to be.

Their department officials did. I gathered some of the information from them and the rest from the Library of Parliament. The opposition parties came together and took out the abusive part of that legislation. We passed the bill where it did need some amendments and clarification, and we ended up with a decent piece of legislation, but now they are back and they are trying to do it again.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-393 purports to amend the Criminal Code in several ways and to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, more commonly referred to as the parole act.

It has at its base with regard to the Criminal Code amendment the introduction of mandatory minimums, basically when the crime that has been committed involves a concealed weapon. We heard from the member for Leeds—Grenville about the horrendous experience that he and members of his family experienced as a result of the use of a concealed weapon.

It is generally the position of the NDP, policy-wise, that we are not supportive of mandatory minimums. We strongly believe in the use within the judiciary of judicial discretion so that the crime and punishment fit the individual facts, as opposed to applying across the board mandatory minimum sentences and taking away from the judiciary the right to apply appropriate sentences based on the facts that are before them, and as opposed to being compelled to impose a penalty no matter what the facts are.

As a political party, we certainly in the past have made exceptions to the rules. We are quite supportive of the use of mandatory minimums in a variety of ways with regard to impaired driving, where in fact their use has been successful. More recently, we have been supportive of the use of mandatory minimums with regard to the use of firearms in the commission of crimes, because in both of those cases we are faced with an epidemic of crime of crisis proportions.

We are able to show, perhaps not as fully as we would like, that the use of mandatory minimums, a more severe form of punishment and penalties, is successful when it is targeted and when we are dealing with a crime that is at a particular crisis level. It is effective there.

We are able to show, particularly by looking to the experience in the United States, where the use of mandatory minimums grew out of all proportion, that it did not have any particular impact on the reduction in crime in those states where it was used extensively. In fact, we are seeing a number of state governments in the United States now repealing mandatory minimum sentences because they have been shown not to be at all effective and in fact have been shown to be useless when they are used broadly.

To come back to Bill C-393, I think we all can appreciate and be concerned about the process that the member for Leeds—Grenville went through and understand his motivation in moving this bill before the House. Unfortunately, that is not the way law should be drafted. In particular, criminal law should not be drafted from that perspective. I do not want that to sound in any way critical of him, but it is simply an observation of the methodology that one should apply when one is creating criminal law.

I do want to be critical of the government and maybe the Conservative Party and its members. The government cannot continue to try to amend the Criminal Code piecemeal. This is another example of it.

If the government is really serious about widespread reform as the government sees it, or as changes to the Criminal Code and maybe to the ideology behind the Criminal Code, to the philosophy of sentencing and the philosophy of punishment as the government would see it, then it has to be government policy. We cannot be doing this ad hoc and piecemeal, one section of the code at a time. It is just simply not the way to have a criminal justice system that makes any sense.

The government is not doing that. I have stood in the House repeatedly over the last couple of years, since the Conservative government has been in place, and criticized it for not doing that. I have implored it, if it is serious about amending the Criminal Code, to do it in an omnibus way and bring in massive legislation.

The code is in terrible shape in many respects. It has contradictions in it. Penalties are too severe in some cases and not severe enough in others, when the crimes are juxtaposed with the resulting range of penalties that can be imposed. It needs to be updated in a number of ways because of the advance of technology. Rather than do this in a way that would be systematic and effective, the government has not done that. It has brought in a series of bills. In addition to that, private members have brought in a series of bills.

I do not have the number, but Parliament, since January of 2006, has to have been faced with at least 50 bills on crime, between the 10 to 20 that the government has brought forward and then at least the 30 to 40 more in the form of private members' bills. It is confusing. It is an erratic way to proceed with reform of our criminal justice system. It is just not the right way to do it, but the government continues.

I want to be clear. As individuals, there is always a free vote. However, members of the NDP always discuss it and we have not collectively come to a decision as to whether we will support the bill at second reading and send it to committee or vote against it second reading.

I want to express another concern about the bill. The very first major criminal law bill, an amendment to the Criminal Code, which the government introduced shortly after it was elected, was Bill C-9. That was back in the first session of the 39th Parliament. The bill went to the justice committee and was significantly altered in the committee. It dealt with conditional sentences. When it came back to the chamber and was finally passed, it expressed the will of Parliament, the significant majority of parliamentarians who were elected in the last election.

We made it very clear to the government that the use of conditional sentences was not to be cut way back as Bill C-9 originally proposed to do, again leaving to our judiciary the discretion as to when a conditional sentence was appropriate. That message was very clear. My estimation was that perhaps as many as 90% of the crimes that the government wanted to exclude from the purview of conditional sentences were in fact put back in by the justice committee in the amendments and then adopted by Parliament, by the expression of the will of a significant majority of parliamentarians.

This bill, and it is just a small part, would preclude the use of conditional sentences by introducing a mandatory minimum in these circumstances. It seems to me the bill is contrary to the intent of the spirit of the vote that we took under Bill C-9. I almost question whether the bill should have been allowed to proceed because we had a vote in the House. It was a government bill altered by the opposition parties quite significantly and I believe that vote would have precluded this bill from coming forward.

I believe it should never should have come forward to the House, given the rules. However, it has and it is before us, but it causes me great concern as to whether we should support the bill, given the vote that has already taken place in the House.