This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.
Vic Toews Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of that Act, a terrorism offence or a criminal organization offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more is not eligible for a conditional sentence.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-9s:
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie
Order, please. I am sorry but the time has long since expired.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Charlottetown.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this very important topic today.
This issue involves the whole role of conditional sentencing. As everyone is aware, this issue was changed in 1996 and adopted. I believe over the last 10 years it has probably served us well, and that is borne out through some international comparisons. However, I believe the original intent of Parliament is at present not being lived up to, that there are situations where very serious crimes have been committed and the criminals have been given conditional sentences. It is about time that Parliament reviewed the legislation and made changes so this does not happen in the future.
Specifically, I am talking about some of the sexual crimes involving young people and the violent crimes. In the past, the conditional sentencing provisions have been used by our judiciary in allowing conditional sentencing, which I, as a member of Parliament, do not think is appropriate. I believe it is time to amend those certain provisions in the Criminal Code.
I have listened to a lot of debate on this issue. I should point out that in my previous life I practised law with a large firm in eastern Canada for about 25 years. During my career, especially in the early parts of my career, I did a lot of part time prosecuting and I did a lot of defence work. I would have represented hundreds and hundreds of individuals charged with the crimes I prosecuted. After going through those life experiences, there are no two cases the same. Every case brings its own unique set of facts.
We are talking about an individual accused, the age of the accused, the victim, the crime, the circumstances surrounding the crime and the record of the accused, but no two cases are the same.
There is no cookie cutter approach. Every time a judge is faced with a sentencing process, he has to look at all the factors involved. The principles are well enunciated in the cases. He has to look at deterrence of the offence or retribution to society, protection of the public, rehabilitation of the offender and perhaps, more important, the proportionality. At the end of the day, the sentence has to fit the crime.
I do not think it is that helpful on the floor of the House of Commons to talk about this case or that case. No two cases are the same. In certain cases maybe the judge, or the appeal court or the Supreme Court of Canada made a mistake. For every case that someone cites as an example, where perhaps a person should not have received a conditional sentence, I can cite 10 other cases where, if the bill existed before the amendment were passed, persons were sent to jail but they should not have been, which is a travesty of justice.
As I said in my opening remarks, the legislation needs review by Parliament. The previous government introduced legislation to make certain changes and I supported them. It is time for a change after 10 years. Again, the conditional sentence is a very important tool for judges in sentencing. I believe in about 5% of the cases the judges in fact use a conditional discharge. A lot of times the accused serves his sentence in the community, and terms and conditions are invoked. I believe in about 15% of the cases there is a breach of the terms, mostly involving the use of alcohol or drugs, and the accused is then sent to jail.
Those provisions came about through amendments to the Criminal Code in 1995 or 1996. It is time for members of the House to review them, ask themselves whether they are working and decide whether amendments are required.
As one member of Parliament, I support amendments to tighten up the code because, as some of the speakers have pointed out, there have been situations, especially sexual crimes, sexual crimes involving youth and more violent crimes, where the accused has received a conditional sentence, which, in my view, is not appropriate for the circumstances of the offence. There may be factors out there regarding the sentence that support that principle but when one looks at it from a societal point of view, one just cannot have that going on. I agree that headlines, like “Accused convicted of molesting a four year old girl gets house arrest”, are inappropriate, which is why these provisions are before the House now.
The intent of the legislation, which I think has been followed, although there have been exceptions, is that less serious offences involving property and some physical assaults, this would be a tool for judges in the appropriate circumstances to allow the judge to have the accused person upon conviction serve the sentence in his or her home. This has been borne out by the statistics, by international research and by a lot of the positions from the provinces, although I think most provinces agree that the pendulum has swung too far and that we need to move it back, but most of them, if not all, do agree that conditional sentences are an effective tool for judges to use and ought to be continued.
The original Bill C-9 as drafted includes about 90 Criminal Code offences, anything above a maximum term of 10 years. I believe it went too far and the amendments presently before the House are an effective compromise that tighten up the legislation but, at the same time, allows judges the leeway and discretion they should have in sentencing certain offenders.
As I indicated in my previous question, statistics can be twisted around but the statistics now show, and I invite people to do their own research on this issue, that crime rates are dropping across Canada. However, that is not to suggest that crime is not a very serious issue. It is a very serious issue and the House must take it very seriously.
In some of the discussions today, people have been using examples. One example was whether a person who arrives in the middle of the night and burns someone's house down should receive a conditional sentence? The answer is absolutely not. The person should be thrown in jail and the key should be thrown away.
For every example there is another example. If an 18-year-old, first year university student, who has never had any interaction with the criminal courts or the judicial system in his life, gets involved with the wrong crew on a certain night and steals a car, should a conditional sentence be a tool available to the judge if he or she sees it appropriate in the circumstances?
The point is that each case is unique and each case is different and it is not helpful to take situations out of context and say that this or that should not have happened. I believe it is our job as legislators to set the parameters for the judges so they can do their jobs and have the tools available to follow the principles that they should be following and that each individual accused upon conviction is sentenced in the appropriate manner.
I reiterate that a conditional sentence must be an option in most offences but certainly not all, as Bill C-9, as amended, indicates.
The discussion today is very much related to the overall discussion that we are having with a number of justice bills before Parliament. Some of them were introduced by the previous government. Some appeared to me that they would become law but they did not. They died on the order paper. The new government has reintroduced them with some amendments. I believe all parties agree that five or six of them should come into law immediately, and I hope they do.
This bill is one that members of Parliament think should be amended. The justice committee has tabled and passed certain amendments. Those amendments have passed and now they are coming before the House of Commons for a vote.
I want to make another point in this debate. We are in a minority government. I believe there are 306 of us presently in the House of Commons representing the vast majority of Canadians, other than two ridings that do not presently have representation in the House. We are here to represent all Canadians.
Bill C-9 was proposed by the government. It went to the justice committee where it was debated. Amendments were proposed, debated, deliberated and voted upon. Now it has come to the House. I support the amendments but if the majority of the members of the House do not support the amendments, that is the end of it. I will not prolong the discussion or the debate, which is the way I believe every member should approach this particular bill before the House.
I do not think it adds anything to the debate to be up screaming and saying that we are soft on crime because that is simply not the case. It is unfortunate that those allegations are being made by certain members of the House.
I think this is indicative of what is going on in the House. We are in a minority government and we need to compromise. We need to seek consensus involving a majority of 306 members. In this case, it would appear to me that from the debate I have heard and from talking to members from different parties, that a majority of the members of this House support Bill C-9, as amended.
I do hope that when this bill comes to a vote that it passes and becomes law so that the changes can be made to the existing conditional sentence regime so it can be tightened up and serve society in a much better way.
I again want to state that I support the amended Bill C-9 and I urge all members of the House to support it also.
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to remind the member that over the past 10 years that conditional sentencing has been in place, I and many other members of Parliament have had growing concerns about it.
In fact, it was in March 1998, over eight and a half years ago, that I first brought forward a motion to exclude certain crimes from a judge's discretion in the application of conditional sentencing, basically house arrest. A year later, I took it a step further when I introduced a private member's bill that clearly listed what crimes should be ineligible for conditional sentencing, house arrest. I and many Canadians across the land could see how this system was being abused. When the Liberals brought it forward it was supposed to be for minor property crimes in an attempt to turn some wayward youth who had maybe committed the crime of some graffiti or of shoplifting. However, it was very rapidly abused by the courts and the judges that the hon. member would like to give such great discretion to.
Conditional sentencing was being used for so-called property crimes but it was also being use for crimes of arson, which is what the hon. member mentioned. We just saw in the news a few days ago where an arsonist in California set fires that took the lives of five firefighters. That is a pretty serious crime. If he is found guilty, he will be dealt with severely because arson is a very serious crime in the state of California.
With the amendments that are being proposed to Bill C-9, the Liberals are still soft on crime despite the claims to the contrary from the member. I would remind him that when I put forward private members' legislation to restrict the use of conditional sentencing, his government, which was in power for the last almost 13 years, did nothing to restrict conditional sentencing. It was only with the election of the Conservative government last January that now we are finally seeing this issue addressed.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to detect a question there but I will make a few comments.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Yes, I will mention arson.
The member across talks about the situation in California. If that is the situation, then that would be an option available to a judge, and I would hope that the judge would not even consider a conditional sentence. However, if an 18-year-old, first year university student gets tied up with the wrong crowd and perhaps burns someone's back shed, if that is his first interaction with the judicial system, I have no problem whatsoever if a judge, after proper representation, decides in the circumstances on a conditional sentence.
This gets into the whole debate that we are having. The members want to take individual cases. Not only could he not find one in this country, but he goes to another country to find a case. That is how ridiculous the debate has become. He talked about an arson that was committed in another country where this law would have no jurisdictional aspects, and that is unfortunate.
The law does need tightening and Bill C-9, as amended, does that. I believe we all should support it, including the member across.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
November 3rd, 2006 / 10:50 a.m.
Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo B.C.
Conservative
Betty Hinton ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member opposite had to say on this issue and I clearly heard him say that he had very strong feelings about arsonists, that they should go to jail and that we should throw away the key. Those are pretty strong sentiments. Part of what this amendment does is eliminate the possibility of doing exactly what he is talking about.
He also referred to an 18 year old who makes a mistake and goes on a joyride. I do not believe an 18 year old who makes his first mistake will be captured by the original legislation. What will happen with that 18 year old is, if he does this four or five times a year, then he is a habitual criminal and he needs to be dealt with strongly.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice gave a very good presentation earlier this morning but perhaps the member missed it. He made it very clear that judges would have the discretion for first time offenders, such as the joyrider, to be exempted. I would be interested to hear his comments on that.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question, but the premise that she stated, and I thought I heard her correctly, that if a person is convicted of arson, this provision eliminates any possibility of that person going to jail, is not correct. That is a total misunderstanding of the Criminal Code. It is a total misunderstanding of Bill C-9. I urge the member to read not only Bill C-9 but also the Criminal Code. If there is any serious arson and the person is convicted, then I would hope that person would go to jail.
I really cannot answer the question because it is based on a totally erroneous premise that really does not deserve any further comment from me or anyone else in this House.
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member, is he aware that there are a number of people in this country being convicted of child pornography, and many of them are receiving conditional sentences?
During the years that we pleaded with the Liberal government to do something about this terrible stuff that exists out there, the only thing the Liberals came up with over the time that I have been here, started with a suggestion from a judge that there could be some artistic merit, so we have to be careful how we construct a bill dealing with child pornography. Then it came back. It did not go over so well, so then they said that there may be some public good. Of course that did not fly very far. Then they came in with more legislation, amendments to change the wording to say that there could be a useful purpose. All of these suggestions came out of a Liberal government. Mr. Speaker, if that is not soft on crime, I will eat your shirt.
I would like to know what the dickens the member thinks being hard on crime is when we are dealing with child pornography. The suggestion we got from the Liberal government was that it was doing its very best to protect by using words like “useful purpose”, and that it could be “public good” based on “artistic merit” from some judge.
When are we going to start getting tough on those people who are directly and indirectly attacking our children through child pornography?
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie
Before I recognize the hon. member for Charlottetown, I would just caution members against drawing the Speaker's shirt into the debate.
Shawn Murphy Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Mr. Speaker, we hope that does not happen, not today anyway.
I believe the member's question dealt with the substance of the offence and some of the issues around convicting those accused of child pornography. I certainly agree with a lot of what he said. There has been some difficulty with interpretations from the court and it is something that has to be dealt with.
Again, I will remind the member that Bill C-9 deals with sentencing. It does not deal with the substance of the offence. As I said in my remarks, we have to tighten up the individual provisions of the conditional sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. Bill C-9 does that. I believe it will deal exactly with what the member is talking about for people convicted of sexual assault, sexual assault involving a minor, violent criminals, but at the same time it still leaves open the tool of a conditional sentence for certain property related and minor crimes. That tool will still be available to a judge in the appropriate circumstances.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie
Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to split her time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre?
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the amended bill. There are a number of issues that I raised in the past which I need to raise again. Despite many efforts to talk about these issues, I still do not see the kind of movement that is required. I am speaking about the adverse impact that our current criminal justice system has on aboriginal peoples, first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, as well as on other minority groups, but I am going to be speaking specifically about aboriginal peoples.
In a recent publication, the Assembly of First Nations talked about the over-representation of aboriginal peoples in the prison system. The assembly said that 2.7% of the population in Canada as of March 31 are first nations, but they represent 18.5% of all federally incarcerated prisoners in Canada. In 2000, approximately 1,792, or 41.3%, of all federally incarcerated aboriginal offenders were 25 years or younger. That is a shocking number. That is a lost generation when that many young people of aboriginal descent are in prison. In addition, women are also over-represented. The assembly found that there is an increasing trend of aboriginal women being incarcerated. This has meant an increase of approximately 74%--