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

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

moved that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), be read the third time and passed.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Crowfoot.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-9 but it is definitely with mixed feelings as the bill has currently been amended.

We have to remember that the government and not only the party in government but also the opposition parties were elected. If we all remember the last election, we were elected with a message and a mandate from the people of Canada. Every party, the NDP and the Liberals, ran on a platform to get tough on crime. Therefore, when all members who were elected were back in the ridings, they were able to tell their constituents that we want to get tougher on crime.

The problem is, after the election, when the dust had settled down and it came time to take the measures, to take the steps, that would actually protect society, that would actually have an impact on making our streets safer, and that would have an impact on making our communities safer, only one party seems to be willing to move forward with those tough steps.

I had the privilege last night of attending a fundraiser for victims services in Toronto. In conversation with many of the people who are involved with victims services, one of the things that we find is that it is the victim that is all too often the forgotten member in society. Very quickly, thoughts turn to the offender, to the system, to the process and in all of that, unfortunately, too often it is the victim who is left behind. It is the victim left holding the bag.

The approach that the government chose to fulfill its commitment to eliminate conditional sentences for serious crimes was simple and it was straightforward. Bill C-9, as it was introduced by the government, was aimed at eliminating conditional sentences for offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment.

When I speak to my constituents in Fundy Royal, in the Saint John area and in Moncton, New Brunswick, and across the country, and when I speak to everyday Canadians, I listen to their stories and I hear their comments. They tell us that they do not want repeat serious offenders serving their sentences back in the community where they committed the offence.

I will speak specifically to violent offences, sexual offences, and very serious property crimes where people have been repeatedly victimized. They catch the individuals that were the perpetrators of these crimes. Finally, they get him or her before a court, expecting justice to be served. What do they find out? These individuals are going to serve sentences right in front of their own TVs in the comforts of their own homes on their sofas. That is not justice.

Our bill targeted offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more when prosecuted by indictment. This would have not only targeted offences in the Criminal Code, but also offences contained in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act punishable by 10 years or more.

We never claimed that our bill was perfect. There is no perfect bill, but it was a good bill. It was a bill that captured the most serious offences. The Minister of Justice , when he appeared before committee, said to the opposition that he was open to reasonable amendments to the bill. If the opposition members had some better idea than they could bring it forward. If they had an idea that would help eliminate conditional sentences for serious crimes and ensure consistency and certainty in sentencing, they could bring that forward as well.

However, the minister also pointed out that several of the property crimes were made ineligible by Bill C-9. When the House listens to this list there is probably no one listening, whether in the House or in our country, who does not know of someone who has been victimized by one of these crimes or perhaps has been victimized themselves.

There was theft over $5,000, and that includes serious auto theft which has been a problem in both our urban and rural areas. Identity theft, break and enter, these are serious offences. Arson, robbery, again very serious offences. Such offences should not be eligible for conditional sentence. They should not be eligible for house arrest and any amendments that did so would not be considered reasonable amendments by this government.

Obviously and unfortunately, the opposition parties did not agree. They preferred to spring an amendment in committee that essentially gutted the bill by limiting the restrictions to the availability of conditional sentences to “serious personal injury offences” as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code, terrorism offences and criminal organization offences. There are several serious problems with the approach put forward by the opposition.

Serious personal injury offences are defined in the dangerous offender part of the Criminal Code. The definition is designed for dangerous and long term offenders that are often referred to as the worst of the worst, not for offenders receiving a sentence of less than two years which is the maximum sentence for a conditional sentence.

We are talking about two completely different types of offenders. The serious personal injury category of offences, while that may sound appropriate when we look at the interpretation the courts have applied and we look at the code, is clearly not appropriate for this bill. It covers indictable offences punishable by 10 years or more and involving the use or attempted use of violence against another person or involving conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person or inflicting or likely to inflict severe, psychological damage upon another person.

The problem with relying on this definition as the opposition seems to want to do is that Canadians clearly do not believe that these offences should attract conditional sentence. The problem is the level of violence or endangerment must be objectively serious for an offence to constitute a serious personal injury offence. In addition, the commission of a serious personal injury offence, as defined, involves a degree of intent.

Under Bill C-9, as amended by the opposition working together the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals, this will work against making our streets and our communities safe from dangerous individuals, arsonists, people who steal cars, and people who rob elderly senior citizens. The way that the opposition has amended the bill every case would have to be argued by counsel and determined by the judge, based on all the circumstances, as to whether it can fit within the four corners of the serious personal injury offence definition. Obviously, this leaves no certainty in the law as to whether a long list of offences, some of which I have already itemized, are eligible for a conditional sentence or not.

As the Minister of Justice mentioned at report stage of Bill C-9, the Alberta Court of Appeal in Regina v. Neve concluded that robbery, for example, did not in that case constitute a personal injury offence. I should point out that robbery is an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment for life potentially. In other words, the amendment proposed by the opposition parties would still allow conditional sentences in cases where they were not meant to be applied. That is for serious crimes, some of which are punishable by a maximum sentence of 14 years or life.

We have to remember, and I was not here at the time, but some members in the House were when conditional sentencing was introduced, that we were assured that house arrest was not going to be used for serious crimes. It was sold to Canadians as something that would only be used in so-called minor cases. Yet, we see in cases involving crimes against children, involving recidivism, involving repeat offenders dealing with car thefts, thefts over $5,000, robbery, and arson, that individuals are getting conditional sentences.

This government has said enough is enough. We have listened to Canadians and we have said we will not allow individuals who repeatedly victimize their communities to serve their time in their own homes and the opposition parties are unified and working against us.

The amendment made to Bill C-9 by the opposition ignores the concerns of Canadians who want to see serious crime receive real punishment. They want to see consistency in sentencing, but above all they want themselves and their families to be safe. This will not be achieved by Bill C-9 as amended. I wish to oppose the amendments put forward by the opposition.

I call on all members of this House to work together to provide security for our communities.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the member opposite. He surely knows, and members of his party know, that the Conservative Party by no means has a monopoly on the desire to make Canada's streets and communities as safe as possible. There is no monopoly on that side of the House.

On this side of the House, as the Liberal Party, we feel very strongly that streets have to be as safe as possible. That is why 13 years of Liberal government have resulted in Canada still being recognized as one of the safest countries in the world.

Because often members opposite will talk about certain examples, I would like to ask the member directly, with respect to auto theft, for instance, if an 18 year old, hypothetically of course, succumbs to peer pressure and joins with two or three buddies, perhaps to some extent under the influence of alcohol, and they decide in concert to steal an automobile for an evening, should that 18 year old automatically go to jail, as is proposed by the member? That seems to me a rather unimaginative solution to a problem.

I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on that specific hypothetical.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

First, Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the premise of the member's preamble that all parties take crime seriously. I think the last 13 years of Liberal government that the member refers to have been absolutely atrocious when it comes to justice, when it comes to balance in our justice system, and when it comes to protecting communities and society, and I could go on in regard to arson, car theft, break and enter. Canadians, my constituents in Fundy Royal, and I think probably the member's own constituents, if he were to ask them, are fed up with these individuals receiving conditional sentences.

The member has to be reminded that in all cases, even currently, the crown prosecutor has the ability to proceed by way of indictment or by way of summary conviction. Under our bill, if a crown prosecutor elected to proceed by summary conviction in some cases that were less serious, a conditional sentence is still available.

It is only in the more serious cases, where the prosecutor proceeds by way of indictment, that we are saying we have to end this revolving door justice system that allows serious offenders, including those who repeatedly steal cars, to get those sentences. I do not know if the member does not think that is a serious problem, but it is a serious problem, and maybe he should ask--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. We have others who want to ask questions. The hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, having sat on the justice committee for the biggest part of the last 13 years, I will tell members that during the election campaign when I proposed these very measures to the public during campaign speeches, what surprised me was that the Liberal candidate and the NDP candidate in every case supported everything I said. They agreed with everything I proposed, in line with what we are trying to do will Bill C-9. We did not have a Bloc candidate there but I am sure he or she would have objected.

What did not surprise me is that when I got back to the committee, after being there for 13 years, suddenly there was a change. Obviously there was some real soft peddling on how to deal with crime and these issues. They were not believing what they said during the election campaign. That became very obvious. Especially after they made their amendments, it was totally obvious.

I did not expect anything different from the Bloc members, because they have always been soft on crime, but I did expect the Liberals and the NDP to maintain that attitude to support the public, which was calling out loud and clear, “Do something about the crime element. Get rid of house arrest for serious crimes”.

Did the member not hear the same message that I heard during the campaign? Why would he suppose that sudden soft peddling from the Liberals and the NDP took place in the committee during the debate?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Wild Rose and also the hon. member for Crowfoot, who is going to speak next, for consistently calling for safer communities and for being tireless advocates on behalf of victims, specifically children. I commend them both for their hard work on this file.

They know that over the past 13 years the Liberals and NDP liked to talk the talk but only one party is walking the walk when it comes to getting tough on crime. It is not good enough for them to say one thing to their constituents when they are back home or at debates and then do another when we are in the House of Commons and it comes time to protect communities.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to stand in the House to speak to Bill C-9. I note that over the number of years I have been in the House and serving on the justice committee, we brought forward bills like this as private members' bills. That happened a number of times. There were four or five private members' bills dealing with conditional sentences and dangerous offenders.

There were many different bills that came forward, bills that the people of Crowfoot, Alberta and Canada asked for, and then we watched as the government of the day slammed the door on legislation. That would basically tell Canadians that the responsibility for governments and for our law, for the justice system, was not to protect society.

That is what bills such as this are here to do.

My constituents have always brought forward their concerns over the release of violent offenders back into society. My efforts were to do something about the Liberal Party's neglect and its reckless treatment of conditional sentences, but yet again doors were slammed.

The frustration was felt not just by members of Parliament. The frustration was felt not just by the Conservative Party of Canada. The frustration was felt by victims. Time after time, calls and letters came in from people who had been victimized. They were not always from the primary victim, not always from the one who had been assaulted, not always from the one who had an offence committed against them. Sometimes the families of those victims felt that they personally had been victimized. They felt it especially when, a number of days after the trial, they would meet the individual who had committed the offence against them and see the individual released onto the streets of our communities.

I applaud the justice minister and the government for keeping their commitments and bringing forward the priorities they said they would and for making it clear that criminal justice system changes and changes to bills would take place. We are seeing that happen.

This morning I want to talk about a number of cases that we could perhaps learn from. Let us take a look at some of the past decisions, decisions that might have been an encouragement for this government to make the changes it is trying to implement here.

In one case from 2001, R. v. Bratzer, the offender committed three armed robberies in a period of a week. For those three armed robberies, he sat down, calculated what he was going to do, picked up the weapon of choice and decided to carry out these criminal offences. He went out and did it.

In reaching the sentence, the court considered as aggravating factors the fact that the accused had committed a series of planned robberies, that the offender had calculated, that he was masked at the time of the robbery, and that the offender admitted to the rush the robberies had given him, the sense of gratification, excitement and enthusiasm as he carried them out.

The court also mentioned the fact that the offender had no remorse. He placed the mask over his head. He picked up the weapon of choice. He knew that he was going to get a feeling of excitement and enthusiasm and he went out and committed the offences. The court looked at the circumstances and sentenced the accused to house arrest, to a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

Canadians are concerned when we watch our young men and women and those in society who say that they get a rush from perpetrating criminal offences and victimizing Canadians.

Another example of the inappropriate use of conditional sentencing can be found in the case of R. v. Bunn. In this case, the accused, a lawyer, was retained by a Russian lawyer to recover and remit inheritances of money, an estate, from six deceased Manitoba and Saskatchewan residents. In all cases, he converted part of the trust money received from each of the beneficiaries from his trust account to his general account. In other words, he was absconding with the money. Approximately $86,000 was converted through 145 separate transfers or transactions after he had already taken 10% as fees for his services.

At times I have dealt with lawyers and have thought their fees were astronomical on certain occasions, but in this case, after he received 10%, he then went back in and was able through fraud and other ways to abscond with $86,000 from the accounts. The accused was disbarred. He was convicted of six counts of breach of trust. He was sentenced to two years' incarceration.

After trial, but prior to the appeal, Bill C-41 and the conditional sentencing regime came into force. The Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal of the sentence and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day. The Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal. However, it is interesting to learn what Justice Bastarache said in the dissenting opinion:

It is well established that the focus of the sanction for criminal breach of trust is denunciation and general deterrence...In the past this has required that, absent exceptional circumstances, lawyers convicted of criminal breach of trust have been sentenced to jail...This emphasis on denunciation and general deterrence is, for a number of reasons, particularly important when courts punish lawyers who have committed criminal breach of trust. First, the criminal dishonesty of lawyers has profound effects on the public's ability to conduct business that affect people far beyond the victims of the particular crime...Second, as officers of the court, lawyers are entrusted with heightened duties, the breach of which brings the administration of justice into disrepute....

Judge Bastarache was right. Judge Bastarache realized in his dissenting opinion that what the courts were going to do was minimize one of the fundamental institutions that every democracy depends on, and that is the institution of rule of law and a criminal justice system. Confidence that those who would stand in such a place to represent an individual should not be, on the same hand, victimizing that same individual.

This last example shows that since their creation conditional sentences have been applied in cases where they were not intended by Parliament to be applied and where they certainly should not apply. That is why I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for bringing out in his speech the fact that when we stand in these halls and in this House and talk about the intent of law, the courts and the justices say, “Is this what Parliament meant?” We need to be very clear so that the justice system and the court system recognize that when this was put in place we did not intend much of what the courts are allowing to happen now.

Bill C-9 originally intended to restore confidence and permitted this use in appropriate cases only. However, as amended, Bill C-9 does not offer any guarantee that conditional sentences will not be given in serious cases of violent crime, property crime and drug crime. The bottom line is that the Liberal amendment to Bill C-9, supported by the Bloc and the NDP, does not answer the concern of Canadians. It does not make their homes safer. It do not make their streets safer. It will not restore confidence in the conditional sentence sanction or the administration of justice generally.

If Bill C-9 passes in its present form, this House will have missed an extremely important opportunity to do its duty to ensure greater respect for the law on the part of ordinary Canadians and to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a million children living in poverty in Canada. These children are growing up unable to benefit from the services that would help them become responsible and productive citizens. As we all know, poverty is one of the main underlying causes of crime.

According to my colleague, would it not be better to ensure that the provinces have the money they need to fight poverty, rather than having to build more prisons to lock up many people who would have never turned to crime if they had been given even a bit of a chance?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of different conditions lead to crime. Parliament has to lay down the structure of what is acceptable in society and what is not. We have to be guided by certain principles. The protection of society is the responsibility of our criminal justice system. When drafting this type of law, politicians need to be aware of the fact that the protection of our society is very important.

My colleague is right. There are many conditions that lead to criminal activity. Where appropriate, governments must step in and be aware of the factors that could lead to crime. Governments must get involved.

Bill C-9 does not deal with all of the background. Those are areas at which governments have to look. Bill C-9 indicates what would happen when individuals put themselves in that position. Are we going to go back and start diluting everything that has been done here? Are we going to allow people to be victimized because an individual was brought up without all the things that perhaps would have allowed him or her to contribute to society? Although we have to look at departments, social services and other things, and the government is, there needs to be balance when someone crosses the line. There has to be a system in place that says this is unacceptable.

There have been cases where criminals walk through the prison doors back out on to the streets before the victims are out of the hospital. That is not acceptable. Bill C-9 would provide incarceration for some of these offences.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member on the amendments. I think they are positive. I do not really think taking one case and talking about in the House of Commons is that helpful. Over the last 10 years, on a Canada-wide basis, crime rates with respect to property crime, violent crime, youth crime and homicides have decreased.

As a member of the justice committee, what is his view on the reasons for this? A number of reasons could perhaps be advanced such as demographics, or maybe we are doing a better job at getting at the cause of crime or maybe the judicial system is doing a better job. There must be some reasons being advanced in research as to why our crime rate is decreasing.

I agree with the hon. member that we have to toughen up the legislation with respect to conditional sentencing, which is about 10 years old. It does need to be reviewed.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when I go to my constituency, I meet with seniors. I ask them if they feel safer today on the streets than they did 15 or 20 years ago. The answer is no. I also have asked them if they feel safer today when they go into the mall or when they park in an underground parkade and then make their way into the mall. Every one of them says no.

They recognize that gang and drug crimes are up as are many other criminal activities and they do not feel safer. In fact, most of them say they do not feel safer in their very own homes today. The question specifically comes from a premise that crime is down. Violent crime, gang crime, drug crime and gun crime are up.

One of the things I am also very much troubled about is property crime. More and more people are saying that the police do not have the resources or the time to investigate. They are saying that they are not even going to report those crimes.

In fact, when we look at some of the sexual assaults, even more troubling than property crime not being reported, many young men and young women are saying that they are not going to go through the system to even report because the government turns a blind eye to the offender--

[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.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

You mentioned arson.

[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.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary 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?

[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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to split her time with the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[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%--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time has arrived for statements by members. The member has seven minutes and 58 seconds, I believe, remaining in her time.

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

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan had eight minutes left when we last debated this issue.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before we went into question period, I was talking about the fact that Bill C-9, as originally presented by the government, would have had a severe impact on first nations, Métis and the Inuit. They already are severely overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Removing the option of conditional sentences for so many offences would have only increased the numbers of aboriginal people in prison.

I want to quote from the Teslin Tlingit Council letter, dated October 20, asking the government to reconsider its position around conditional sentences. It states:

Within the Yukon, conditional sentences have proven to be an effective instrument utilized by the Territorial Courts working with First Nation community processes, such as the Teslin Tlingit Peacemaker Sentencing Panel. Conditional sentences have contributed toward the promotion and exercise of community accountability and support of offenders to achieve the successful completion of their conditions, while also acknowledging and responding to the interests of those who have been victimized by crime. The result is that families are kept together with a focus on balancing retribution and rehabilitation of the individual, which provides for the benefit of the overall community.

It is incumbent upon this House to consult appropriately with aboriginal people to ensure that the justice system is not going to take its toll on their families and communities.

This bill, as amended, was the result of diligent work by all members of the opposition party on that committee. I want to especially single out the member for London West who worked with the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and a member from the Bloc to have the bill amended to reflect the wishes of Canadians.

Canadians had been saying that they recognized the serious concerns. Canadians had some serious concerns where conditional sentences were used for serious violent crimes. Canadians thought that in those cases they were inappropriate. As a result, the amended bill reflects the fact that serious violent crime is not a situation where conditional sentences should be used.

This bill now reflects the intention to provide notices to judges to be much more careful when considering offences involving serious violent crime.

I want to use an example of serious sexual assaults. The committee heard from aboriginal women of cases where there were very serious assaults, yet the severity of the assault was not given sufficient consideration when conditional sentencing was considered.

There were a very small number of cases involved in this kind of serious violent crime, but it is very important that judges hear from parliamentarians that using conditional sentences in those kinds of circumstances just was not appropriate. This amended bill provides that direction to the courts not to repeat those kinds of abuses of conditional sentencing.

Much has been made about the use of conditional sentences, and there has been a saying to never let the facts get in the way of rhetoric and a lot of overblown statements. However, the opposition parties did consider the facts. They looked at the information that had been provided by a number of witnesses that talked about the benefits of conditional sentencing. In fact, Canada has been a leader in the world in making conditional sentences work.

Conditional sentences are a step in between probation and incarceration. Part of the benefit of conditional sentences is that it allows the judge the latitude to order treatment and other rehabilitative measures. Statistics show that when offenders have access to treatment and other rehabilitative measures, their chances of returning to prison go down.

This is an important factor because Canadians want prevention. They do not want people to end up in prison to begin with. They to ensure that they have access to housing and to education, and to other social supports that prevent them from getting involved in a life of crime to begin with. Canadians do not want people to return to jail. We know that if we provide some measures, in cases where it is not a serious violent crime, to keep people out of prison, their chances go down of re-offending.

These numbers come from Statistics Canada, from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. It says that those who served a conditional sentence were less likely to return to corrections than those who served a prison sentence. These are statistics from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan in 2003 and 2004.

It is often said in this House that the victims often get left out of this equation. There was a study conducted by Julian Roberts and Kent Roach which concentrated upon the victims of crime and their attitudes toward conditional sentencing. Let me refer to what came out of that study, which again was concentrated on the victims of crime.

It was found that most rehabilitation programs can be more effectively implemented when the offender is in the community rather than in custody; that prison is no more effective a deterrent than the more severe intermediate punishments such as enhanced probation; and that the widespread interest in restorative justice has sparked interest in community based sanctions. Restorative justice initiatives seek to promote the interests of the victim at all stages of the criminal justice system, but particularly at the sentencing stage.

There has been some work done. I want to put this in context. We talk about the Conservatives being Republican-like, so I need to bring in statistics from the U.S. According to an article in Vanity Fair:

If the blue states are sinkholes of moral decay, as right-wing pundits insist, how come red states lead the nation in violent crime, divorce, illegitimacy, and incarceration, among other evils?

This Vanity Fair article talks about a book called Red State, Blue State. It says that red states tend to be the most violent places to live. These are Republican states. Red states dominate the rankings of violent crimes despite their emphasis on judgment and incarceration. It seems that the odds of being shot are much higher in a red state and they are the top 15 states in the rate of death by firearms. In the U.S., which has already had this history of being so-called tough on crime, we have seen that crime goes up.

I would argue that we need to look at the appropriate use of conditional sentences and we also need to look at being tough on the causes of crime and being smart on crime. In those cases, what we really need to do is look at adequate enforcement, prevention and a social safety net that supports keeping people out of poverty and supports the appropriate drug and alcohol rehabilitation as being very necessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and I would like to comment on the tough on crime statement that crime goes up. It does not seem to make sense to me. I would seriously question the statistic. In some cases, at least for petty crimes, the rate goes down because when nothing is done about it, people stop reporting it.

I had an individual in my riding, before my riding boundaries changed in 2004, whose store kept getting robbed. Guys, usually young people, would break in at night. They would break down the door, take some stuff and leave. They would leave the door open so that especially in winter it was really not a good thing. He would report it and by the time the police arrived, the damage was done and when they did find the offenders, they got a little slap on the wrist and kept doing it again.

From the victim's point of view the crime rate went down because when he reported these robberies, his insurance company kept increasing his premiums due to the fact that he was a higher risk. He received the punishment and the other guys went free. He said it only made sense to him that he would not report it any more and so he did not.

The incredible part of the story is that one night he was suspicious that they had not hit for a while and maybe that was going to be the night, so he decided to spend the night in his store. Sure enough, they broke in the door. He caught them and held them for the police. The kids got home before he did because he was left to clean up the broken door before he could go home. The police just took the kids home and that was it.

I would like the member to respond to the fact that we need to have accurate statistics based on fact, not just on what is reported.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the member say that he would actually like to see things based on fact, because that is what I am doing. I am quoting fact, not rhetoric.

This is from the Bureau of Justice statistics in the United States. It says that of the ten states with the highest number of total inmates per 100,000 residents in 2003, nine were red. Of the ten states with the most female inmates per 100,000 residents in 2003, all were red. According to these very same statistics, it was the red states that had the highest incidence of crime, so their being tough on crime by putting people in jail was not solving the issue.

I would argue that part of the problem, and the corrections people themselves will say this, is that we need more data in Canada. We need more studies, for example, on how conditional sentencing impacts on aboriginal people. We need to know what the rate of recidivism is. We need to know when people are given access to a rehabilitation and treatment program, whether or not it shortens the length of time people are in prison and increases the length of time that people are able to stay in the community and perhaps contribute to a more productive society.

I certainly would be pleased to provide the member with the statistics from the Bureau of Justice in the United States.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House who worked on the bill know that the appropriate delineation is the serious personal injuries and organized crime, which would bring in any offence in the Criminal Code if organized crime was involved.

I have heard the Minister of Justice talk as if some dangerous offender's hearing is going to happen to people. It seems there is some misleading going on about exactly the type of offences. I heard it a couple of times. The first couple of times I thought that maybe it was a mistake and I was not hearing quite properly.

Maybe certain members opposite who do not seem to understand the legislation properly and what the legislation puts forward should be going back to the justice officials and getting proper briefings. I just want to hear the hon. member's comments.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London West for her work on the committee.

The intent of the bill, as amended, is that it will not be used for the most serious violent crimes. That is why the amendments were put forward in that fashion. It should be noted that the only time judges can even use this particular amended bill is if the sentence is to be two years less a day.

That was a very good comment on the member's part.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to enter the debate on Bill C-9. I can say that in thee inner city riding of Winnipeg Centre which I represent, crime and safety issues are overwhelmingly the number one top of mind issues of the people that I represent when I canvass their views or when they provide me with their opinions in an unsolicited way. Overwhelmingly what my constituents want to talk about are crime and safety issues.

I have tried to address those concerns to accurately reflect those interests. I have stood 22 times in this 39th Parliament to speak on crime and justice issues in my riding. This speech today is the 23rd along these lines that I have made.

I agree 100% with the people in the riding of Winnipeg Centre that Canadians have a right to safe streets. My constituents have a right to feel safe in their homes. Members of Parliament and elected representatives have a duty and an obligation to do everything they can to make the streets safe and to give people the reasonable comfort that they want.

I can recount how things have changed since I grew up in Winnipeg. It was not unusual when I was a kid that after dinner we simply went outside and played. We played hard. We ran and played with all of our friends and neighbours. All of us would pour out of our houses right after dinner and we would not come back home until dusk or until our mothers were hollering out the front door for us to come home.

Those days are over. No one does that anymore in the inner city of Winnipeg. They cannot; it is not safe. Parents cannot send their kids to the corner store to buy a quart of milk in some neighbourhoods in my riding.

The entire city is in mourning, in shock and in grief at the depravity that occurred only 10 days ago not blocks from my office in the inner city of Winnipeg. I will not go into the graphic details, but what occurred was one of the most horrific gang related murders of an innocent bystander that has ever taken place in Winnipeg. It reminded people that things have gone too far. Citizens demand corrective action. They demand that MPs and elected people do what they can to make their streets safe.

In that vein I try to support as many of the bills on criminal justice, crime and safety issues that I possibly can. I voted yes on Bill C-9 on June 6, 2006 at second reading. My party was in support of Bill C-9 again just this week. In the interim, the bill was dramatically amended at committee. The Liberals moved dramatic motions which were supported by the Bloc and the NDP. Therefore, by the time we got to vote on Bill C-9 again, it was a radically changed bill, but it still has the effect of reducing conditional sentencing.

The hue and cry that was generated in many communities, my own included, is that conditional sentencing was being used too frequently for the wrong people and the wrong types of crime. People were demanding justice.

I am told that 500 to 600 people per year will no longer be eligible for conditional sentencing upon conviction under Bill C-9 as it currently stands, even as amended by the committee. The bill as originally introduced by the Minister of Justice would have caused about 2,600 people per year to be ineligible for conditional sentencing upon conviction. I agree that is a dramatic difference, but I also remind people that we have gone a step toward using conditional sentencing less.

I do not know what terrible forces compel children and youth in my riding to commit the atrocity that occurred 10 days ago on Sergeant Avenue. A 32-year-old woman went to the 7-Eleven to buy a quart of milk and met her death by a swarm of children 12, 14 and 15 years old; she was murdered brutally on a street in my riding. I do not blame the people of Winnipeg to be demanding an appropriate response.

What has created these social conditions is a complex mix of hopelessness, desperation, chronic long term poverty, violence, substance abuse and drugs. I do not know what the whole recipe is to create these appalling social conditions, but it has gone from bad to worse in recent years. Today, 47% of all the families in my riding live below the poverty line and 52% of all the children in my riding live below the poverty line. Those are alarming statistics, the worst in Canada. They got worse during the 13 years of Liberal reign. They went from bad to worse as every social program, which tried to hold that troubled neighbourhood together, was cut, hacked and slashed.

The cutbacks to the EI fund alone took $20.8 million a year out of my riding, already the poorest riding in Canada. That $20.8 million was sucked right out of there. It is like having the payrolls of two major auto plants ripped out of the riding for no compelling reason. It drove people from the edge of despair into absolute desperation.

I am not saying that poverty is the root cause of crime. I am saying that people in those appalling social conditions are a lot more likely to be exposed to, victims of, and part of criminal activity.

I suppose the god of the Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice, CPC) is a vengeful god, but revenge is only one element of sentencing. We have to address that. There are other motivations. Revenge and punishment, yes, but there has to be some recognition that rehabilitation has to be one of the goals. Yes, we are trying to protect society from certain people who should be locked away, but let us not lose sight of the bigger picture, so when we get tough on crime, we have to get smart on crime at the same time. I do not want that ever to become a cliché.

Deterrence and denunciation is important and we have to ensure that the sentence is commensurate with the gravity of the crime. I cannot imagine a sentence appropriate enough to be commensurate with the crime that happened not blocks away from my office when a 32 year old innocent woman went to a 7-Eleven store to buy a quart of milk. I will not go into the details because they are too horrific to share here today. Let it simply be said that Winnipeg is reeling in shock at the gravity of this offence.

As good as it feels to punish and as tempting as it is to be motivated by revenge and vengeance, I sympathize with those who are calling out for that reaction. We have to contain ourselves. This is the very time that leadership is required. We cannot shape social policy while we are in the midst of the backlash to one of the most horrific anecdotal crimes seen in our country, and certainly in my city of Winnipeg. In a sense, we have lost our innocence.

Winnipeg is in shock the same way the city of Victoria was when Reena Virk was so brutally murdered. This is the type of injury that this offence has done to my community. It is why the papers today are full of absolute demands for swift justice, for tougher sentences and for stricter penalties. The Minister of Justice unfortunately is capitalizing on this. He is playing politics with the misery associated with this terrible crime. He is out there in the newspapers saying that the NDP is soft on crime because we do not agree with every single thing he says.

In fact, we voted for eight or nine of his ten or twelve justice bills recently, trying to make the criminal justice system more appropriate. Just because we do not accept everything he says as chapter and verse of the gospel according to the Minister of Justice, does not mean we are soft on crime. It means we are trying to make Bill C-9 better. Committee stage is for that, and it felt the bill went too far.

I voted for Bill C-9. I will support it when it comes up again, as amended, but do not let anybody in the House try to say that we are soft on crime because we tried to make that bill better

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult not to stand in the House and say that the NDP is not soft on crime.

I am going to ask the member about the contradiction. He talks about being tough on crime. I have heard him say that a number of times in the House. Yet he voted against the tough measures proposed by the original bill introduced by the government.

The government wanted to ensure that people who broke into homes, burned down property and stole cars could not serve their sentence in the comfort of their living rooms. Why would the member have voted against such measures? We know, as citizens, that criminals behind bars cannot break into homes, steal cars or burn down property. The list of offences goes on.

It is unbelievable the things that the member and his party believe should be eligible for conditional sentences, things like assault with a weapon, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons.

Why the contradiction? If he is tough on crime, why did he not stand up, support the original bill as introduced by the government and ensure that these types of sentences could not be served at home?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I voted, yes, for Bill C-9 on June 6, and I will vote yes for it again in its amended form.

Bills evolve as they go through the process. I believe Bill C-25, the proceeds of crime bill, is not tough on crime and we are trying to amend it to get tougher.

I do not know why the government is going so light on criminals in being able to keep their luxury homes, their tricked out Escalades and their fancy motor boats. We believe those assets should be seized and put the reverse onus on the criminal to prove they were purchased by legitimately earned monies and not the proceeds of crime.

I do not know why--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened with interest to the member's speech. He used the word revenge as it relates to this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is there needs to be a component in all of our justice system in terms of preventing crime and rehabilitation, but there also needs to be a strong deterrence. Deterrence is far different than revenge.

Would the member comment on the effectiveness of providing effective deterrents in our laws so people who are considering these kinds of actions will not do that?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The god of the Minister of Justice may be a vengeful god, but my faith informs me that revenge is not the only objective in sentencing. Deterrence and denunciation, the two ruling factors that judges address in sentencing, do not work when the social fabric has collapsed. People are not embarrassed by what they do, when they are dealing in crisis social conditions. Those two social pressures do not have the same effect that they have in a stable middle class wholesome community like Steinbach where the minister is from. Where I come from, they do not apply.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I have a lot of respect for the member and his comment.

I guess I am having trouble, along with many people understanding, his new position with regard to Bill C-9.

On August 18, the member stated, “I think it's a social experiment that has failed catastrophically. If the idea was to save money by having less people in jail the trade-off hasn't been worth it”. Does the member not understand that by gutting Bill C-9, he is putting the very same car thieves, arsonists and break and enter people back on to the street to commit these crimes in the very community that he claims to protect?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The Bill C-9, which I supported on November 1 and for which I voted, still takes approximately 600 convicted criminals out of eligibility for conditional sentences. It does not go as far as the minister's initial proposal, but I voted for the initial proposal as well.

I will tell my colleague from Brandon, had the bill not been amended, I would have voted for it the way it was in its original form, but it came to us amended. I supported it when it was in its raw state, I supported it in its amended state and I would have supported it had it come to us in its raw state again.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-9 at third reading stage and to put things into context.

In 1996, the Minister of Justice—if my memory serves me correctly, it was Allan Rock at that time—introduced Bill C-41 following a federal-provincial-territorial conference. At the time of the conference, all the justice ministers—whether they were Liberal, New Democratic, Conservative or separatist—were quite concerned about the possibility of the inmate population doubling. Canada had the fourth highest incarceration rate in the world at the time. When Allan Rock introduced Bill C-41, one third of all inmates were serving time for failing to pay fines.

The government always forgets this little piece of history, but when Bill C-41 was introduced, it received support from all the justice ministers. There was even a white paper on the growth in inmate population and we were well aware that the United States was the country that incarcerated the most, followed by Russia, Canada and South Africa.

When Bill C-41 was passed, an intermediate offence was created between imprisonment and probation, called conditional sentencing. However, it would be terribly dishonest to suggest that conditional sentencing, which is provided under section 742 of the Criminal Code, is not well defined.

Sometimes we hear government types talking as though conditional sentencing were completely up to the judge's discretion, that judges do not obey a single rule and that the legislator left this option open without any framework.

I want to remind this House and the government that before handing down conditional sentences, in accordance with section 742, judges must respect four conditions. First, there must be no minimum sentence. Second, the sentence, imprisonment, must be less than two years. Third, the judge must be convinced that the person does not pose a risk to the community where that person is known. Fourth, the judge must be convinced that the conditional sentence corresponds to one of the sentence determination objectives codified in section 718 in the Criminal Code. This is an important condition, as well, I believe.

Once again, we must remember that the Canadian Sentencing Commission—the Archambault commission—which the Conservatives set up at the end of their mandate in 1984, recommended in its 1987 report that Parliament codify a number of sentencing objectives. Among the objectives listed in the Criminal Code are deterrence, denunciation and reprobation. There is also rehabilitation. The judge must be convinced that at least one of these objectives applies to impose a conditional sentence. There can be a number of objectives, but there are situations where denunciation takes precedence and requires a prison sentence. In a certain number of other situations, the objective is rehabilitation, and the judge can impose probation or a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Section 742 clearly states that a judge must take a number of factors into account.

Throughout the committee's review of this bill, the Conservatives, with their own special brand of demagoguery, have tried to convince everyone that anyone opposed to Bill C-9 was soft on crime, indecisive and lacking solidarity with victims of crime.

I believe this kind of talk is unacceptable, to say the least. Conditional sentencing is, in reality, an extremely marginal part of the sentencing system.

I have some statistics from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which supports Bill C-9.

In 2003—these are the most recent statistics available—257,127 cases ended in a conviction. Of those 257,127 cases, 13,267 individuals were given conditional sentences. 13,267 conditional sentences in 257,127 convictions is a little less than 6%.

The Conservatives are worried about conditional sentencing. It is possible that in some of those 13,267 convictions conditional sentences were not appropriate. We must remember that conditional sentencing is a marginal part of the justice system and that it is governed by a number of conditions.

When a court of justice hands down a conditional sentence, the convicted person is subject to surveillance—this can be electronic surveillance, a curfew or a requirement to report to a supervisor or remain in a given jurisdiction. None of this is as discretionary as the government would have had us believe during this debate.

What did the government do with Bill C-9? It tried to introduce a list of offences.

The government, with a deplorable lack of discrimination, asked its officials to find and prepare a list of all offences in the Criminal Code punishable by more than 10 years' imprisonment . The list contained some 100 offences.

Just because an offence is punishable by 10 years' imprisonment does not mean that a judge will impose a 10-year sentence. The list of proposed offences will make it impossible, de facto, for a judge to hand down a conditional sentence.

The problem with this way of doing things is that it is so lacking in balance as to be ridiculous. Why ridiculous? Because there are certain offences in the Criminal Code punishable by five years' imprisonment for which we do not believe that conditional sentencing is appropriate.

For example, failure to provide necessaries of life for a child under the age of sixteen years, pursuant to section 215 of the Criminal Code, is punishable by imprisonment of two years.

However, it is a disturbing offence. It may be more disturbing that a neighbour found guilty of child negligence is free in the community than that someone is sentenced to ten years for pirating software.

Pirating software is certainly a reprehensible crime, a violation of intellectual property and intellectual fraud, but it is not clear that an individual found guilty of pirating software or having stolen a computer cannot serve his sentence in the community under appropriate supervision.

There are other types of offences not included by the Conservatives. Yet, our citizens may find them even more disturbing. For example, infanticide, abandonment of a child, criminal breach of contract, and kidnapping of a child under 16.

Not all these offences appear on the list, compiled by the Conservative government, of crimes that are punishable by ten years in prison or more.

However, that is not what this debate is about. This debate is about the difference between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. I will take this opportunity to point out that all opposition parties—my neo-Bolshevik friends, the Liberals and the Bloc—voted unanimously against Bill C-9 at the committee report stage. Why? Because this is a bill on whose principle we can agree. Everyone agrees that conditional sentences are not a constitutional right. There are offences for which we do not wish the offenders to serve their sentence in the community. The Bloc Québécois has never claimed otherwise, because we are responsible individuals.

It is not a matter of an automatic response and we hope the Conservatives will some day understand this. The Conservatives are opposed to the judiciary. They refuse to believe in the judgment of our judges. I will reword my statement. They refuse to believe in the ability of judges' to properly assess a situation. The Minister of Justice appeared before us. The Minister of Justice is my friend. I even feel like I am his little favourite. He seeks my presence, consults me and respects me. Our friendship will not be jeopardized simply because my party repeatedly opposes his bills. The minister is capable of separating his feelings of friendship for me—which I reciprocate—from the fact that I think he proposes bad bills. Indeed, the Minister of Justice is a man of great quality on a personal level.

However, his election platform makes no sense. As a little aside, thanks to the Access to Information Act, we obtained the analysis conducted by the Conservatives of their own platform. Not one public servant, familiar with the courts and understanding how the system works, would be willing to endorse the Conservative platform.

The Conservatives want to bring the justice system in line with American justice. God willing, this government will never win a majority.

Three ministers were able to cite just four bad decisions out of thousands. The judiciary needs to make it clearer to us as parliamentarians that the courts do not hand out conditional sentences in cases of serious personal injury, sexual assault or confinement, because these are crimes punishable by less than two years in prison.

It is not because a prison sentence is less than two years that the crime is not serious. However, the courts and the judges are far more discerning than the government would have us believe.

I see Conservative members champing at the bit. They want to ask me questions about break and enter, which is obviously a serious offence. The Supreme Court even said that a man's house is his castle. My house was robbed. They stole my VCR, three bottles of wine—you know how little I drink, I am practically a teetotaller—my CD collection, including a Diane Dufresne CD and a Charles Aznavour CD, and my computer. It felt like a terrible violation. It is not very pleasant to have your property stolen. Nonetheless, the Conservatives did not include break and enter in the list of exclusions.

The punishment for break and enter is life in prison. The Criminal Code has never been amended. Since the advent of the Criminal Code in 1892, a judge has never sentenced anyone to life in prison for break and enter.

In serious cases of break and enter a judge is certainly not going to hand down a conditional sentence.

My time is up, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

You have four and a half minutes remaining.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, fortune is smiling on me, I have four and a half minutes left.

I must say, this is what is dishonest about the Conservative rhetoric. In cases in which the Crown believes that a conditional sentence has been wrongly awarded, it is the Crown's duty, its privilege and its responsibility to appeal the decision. During the appeal, it must be proven that a conditional sentence was not appropriate.

That said, let us break this down even further. I have here the list of offences for which conditional sentences have been awarded. These statistics are not from the government, nor the Bloc Québécois. These statistics are from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Upon reviewing the cases that most often resulted in a conditional sentence, they were, for the most part, offences against property and fraud. There were also a large number of offences against the administration of justice and drug-trafficking offences.

Here again, when we talk about drug trafficking, the statistics can be misleading. As defined in the legislation, drug trafficking does not necessarily mean selling 300 kg of cocaine; it can be something else.

Here is an example. I am in my living room watching Hockey Night In Canada or some other program, and a friend offers me a joint. Did you know that, under the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, that is considered drug trafficking? I am not encouraging people to smoke marijuana or any other substances. What I am saying is that we have to be very careful how we define an offence.

The statistics from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police indicate that conditional sentences have been handed down for a large number of offences, such as simple possession of marijuana and similar offences.

In closing, I would ask the Conservatives to keep a sense of proportion and nuance and to have some confidence in the judiciary. In some cases, tougher legislation is warranted.

The Bloc Québécois has introduced an anti-gang bill that reverses the onus of proof for proceeds of crime, in cases of organized crime and situations where people hold positions of significant authority. The legislation may have to be toughened. However, every time an attempt is made to generalize, every time there is a lack of nuance, there is a risk of poor criminal policy.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit surprised that no one wanted to ask the hon. member a question. He has been around here for a long time. He is a member who has taken an active interest in justice issues over the years and has been able to contribute to the justice committee in that time to make better legislation.

I was listening carefully to his remarks and there is much that I agree with in his synopsis of the history of what want on.

My recollection is a little bit different in some aspects. When the bill was originally brought forward, many people warned the justice minister of the time, which I suppose sometimes happens, that the judges would end up giving conditional sentences in respect of crimes that the justice minister and the people on the committee would not have expected them to do, which is exactly what happened. Some of the judges used conditional sentences in a manner that was really not intended by the act and by the committee. This upset justice ministers of the various provinces.

What has ended up happening is kind of like a pendulum. When the pendulum swings one way, namely, with the judges using conditional sentences in what I would consider an inappropriate manner, the Conservative government came in with a bill that was on the other end of the pendulum swing. These amendments have not only brought the pendulum back into the middle to permit conditional sentences in the appropriate crime situations, but also to ensure that judges do not use them for the kinds of crimes for which they were not intended, such as serious personal injury offences, terrorism offences and gang related offences.

I wonder if my hon. friend would care to comment on what I have said.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague is partly right. The problem is that when we look on a larger scale and more longitudinally, we have no evidence that judges have used conditional sentencing inappropriately. In addition, few cases of conditional sentences for organized crime offences, terrorism, homicide or equally serious offences were brought to our attention.

Moreover, for the latest years for which sentencing statistics are available, conditional sentences account for 5% of cases resulting in conviction.

Did some courts hand down rulings that were more questionable? Certainly, but the remedy for that is appeal, and the parliamentary committee has amended the bill to send a clear message.

Section 752 of the Criminal Code, in the case of personal injury offences, and section 477, in the case of criminal organization offences and terrorism, provide that conditional sentencing must not be used for such offences. We are in favour of having this clearly set down in a piece of legislation. However, the minister had proposed a list of 120 offences, and we disapproved of that approach.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my colleague as he talked about his friendship with the justice minister. I know the member has served on the committee in years gone by and that he is a member of the committee who takes it seriously.

Some of the comments we are getting from Quebec and Montreal are from people who are very concerned about home invasion, break-ins and people coming into their homes. Seniors and others are very concerned about the increase in home invasion.

Earlier this morning in my speech, I mentioned the case of R. v. Bratzer where the offender had committed three armed robberies in a period of one week. The court heard that the individual planned the armed robberies, put on a mask, picked up the weapon of choice and carried out three planned robberies. He had a history. It also came out in the court that the individual loved and anticipated the rush that he would get from carrying out this criminal offence. Despite all the information that came out in court, the court sentenced the accused to a conditional sentence, to house arrest, to no prison term, to no incarceration and to go home to his living room for two years less a day.

Given the increase in home invasions in Montreal, why does the member not stand up and say that it is time that we deal with this to prevent this type of sentencing structure for people who are criminals and who get a rush from this type of criminal activity?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if an individual, regardless where—in Montreal or anywhere else—broke into homes three times, it will not be hard to convince me that it is not a case for conditional sentencing.

Is my colleague asking if this was appealed, if an appeals court upheld the decision? It is easy to understand that this is not a case for conditional sentencing.

Statistics presented in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights indicate that for break and enter offences conditional sentencing is rarely used. We cannot assume that the exception is the rule.

At the risk of repeating myself, I would say that according to the data provided to us, conditional sentencing is a marginal reality of the sentencing system. It happens in only 5% of the cases; three times out of four it is a property offence. It is not about cases where an individual commits three offences of residence theft. In such a situation conditional sentencing would not be recommended.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across made some good points in terms of the various crimes that we are dealing with. Quite clearly, we are in the twilight of a time called the war on drugs. This has created a lot of the crime that we are dealing with in Canada right now, as well as the sentencing. It is in the twilight because I think we have recognized that it does not work. In the last Parliament, we had some debate and discussion. We even brought some bills forward to look at how we could deal with this better.

Part of getting tough on crime is taking the oxygen out of the system that criminals live on. In reality, if we want to get tough on crime we need to find ways to eliminate crime. I would like the hon. member across to comment on that.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I thought the period for questions was over, so I left the House and did not hear the beginning of my colleague's question.

I believe he was referring to the end of the war on drugs. I agree: it used to be a bigger problem than it is now.

In general, crime rates are dropping for demographic and economic reasons. The economy is doing well, although some urban centres are more affected than others.

Statistically, the concerns we should be focusing on are economic crime and property crime. There has been a net decrease in offences against the person.

Once again, I am sorry I did not hear the beginning of the first part of the question.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to address Bill C-9.

The bill was amended by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, and I was pleased to support the amended bill when it came before the House at report stage this past Wednesday evening. I commend the members of the justice committee for their efforts, and particularly the member for London West for her diligent work on this bill and all justice legislation that has come before this 39th Parliament.

I have taken a keen interest in law and order issues and safe communities throughout my time in elected office. Prior to becoming the member of Parliament for North Vancouver in 2004, as mayor of the district of North Vancouver, I worked closely with local police, legal and judicial officials to continually monitor crime, law and order and sentencing issues in our community.

My constituents in North Vancouver, like all Canadians, want to be safe in their homes and communities and, as elected officials, it is our duty to ensure that the laws we craft in this place achieve that goal and do not have unintended consequences because they were rushed through Parliament without proper consideration.

I support the principle of Bill C-9 as it was originally tabled by the government in May, namely, the tightening up of the use of conditional sentencing. However, the amendments made to Bill C-9 at committee were necessary and they improved the bill. They certainly do not gut the bill, as some government members and the Minister of Justice have suggested. In fact, this bill provides that a person convicted of, first, a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code; second, a terrorist offence; or, third, a criminal organization offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more, is not eligible for a conditional sentence, nor can a conditional sentence be given where a minimum sentence for the offence applies.

We have heard rumblings that the Conservatives are planning to use justice issues as a wedge issue in the next federal election, and it appears this strategy has already begun. The Conservative government has introduced 11 justice related bills in this House, knowing full well that due to the short life of minority Parliaments, some of these bills will die on the order paper. In the next election, the Conservatives will then try to convince Canadians that all other parties are soft on crime, wrongly suggesting that we delayed or blocked this legislation.

In fact, the Liberal justice plan will fast-track 6 of the 11 justice bills, but this is typical of its style of politics. The Conservatives have yet again looked south at their republican idols and pulled a page from the Bush-Rove playbook, namely, “you either agree with us, or you're with the enemy”.

Despite the recent efforts of the party opposite, this is not the United States and this strategy will not work. It is dishonest. The Liberal Party and Liberal members in this House are not soft on crime. We want effective, smart laws. Despite what the Conservatives may try to convince Canadians, they know where we stand and the Conservatives know that I stand for effective, smart law and order measures.

I understand my time is running out. I had much more to say but I will say that we are pleased, from the opposition side, to have made our offer to fast-track the bills initiated under the former Liberal government, plus two new ones, for a total of 6 of 11 bills, and to get on with making thoughtful, smart improvements to Canada's Criminal Code, not for political gain but for the safety and well-being of Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, November 1, I must interrupt the debate and put the motion to a vote.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

[Some hon. members]

yea.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think we are under a House order that was negotiated between the parties that after two hours of debate, the question would be deemed put and passed on division. Could you just check that, please?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. the government House leader for his advice but it is very important that the Chair have clear instructions from the House as to what is the intention of the House. I will look for that order now.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In response to the point of order raised by the government House leader, I am reading from page 609 of the Journals of November 1. It states:

--and that the time allotted for the report stage of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), shall not exceed one hour and the time allotted for the third reading of Bill C-9 shall not exceed two hours.

That is the extent of the order.

If the House wishes to pass it on division, the Chair will agree with that, but the Chair does need a clear instruction from the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Galipeau), Royal Galipeau]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If we have concluded that matter, I wonder if there would be consent in the House to see the clock at 1:30 p.m., so that we could begin private member's business.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.