Bill C-42 (Historical)

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to eliminate the reference, in section 742.1, to serious personal injury offences and to restrict the availability of conditional sentences for all offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life and for specified offences, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

moved that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member opposite understands how young people often enter the world of crime. They often start out with automobile-related offences, or joy rides. That still goes on. Or these kids might party in a vacant cottage. I am not saying that this is okay. I would be disappointed to learn that my son had gotten involved in something like that, but I know many people who have the same education as I do, or more, who took good care of their children, and who found them in similar situations, because of peer pressure.

Does he really think prison is where we want to send them, since it is widely known as a crime school?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoy the members interventions, both in the House and in the justice and public safety committees on which we both serve.

The hon. member will know that there is an act of this Parliament called the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is part of the Criminal Code but separate and distinct from the Criminal Code and it applies to individuals who run afoul of criminal court procedures but have not yet reached the age of majority, which is 18 years. Nothing in the bill affects any provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, so he need not be concerned.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert has also served as defence counsel, so he would be aware that there are many occasions when he would be representing people in court who have run into unfortunate circumstances. They could come from a very underprivileged family or be a child who was abused and is living on the street. There could be occasion where they could be involved in a break and enter, which the hon. member listed as one of the crimes he would like immediate prison, or theft over $5,000. For example, somebody could steal one of these high-end bikes off the street and it could be well worth over $5,000.

I am asking if the hon. member sincerely believes that in ever circumstance the offender, no matter what the circumstances, should be put in prison without any due consideration whatsoever by the court to the circumstances of the crime?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. Earlier on in my legal career I did practise criminal law, primarily as an ad hoc prosecutor but also as a criminal defence lawyer from time to time.

In answer to her question, it is clear to me and certainly clear to the members on this side of the House that the rights of law-abiders ought to be given precedence over the rights of lawbreakers.

With respect to what she suggested are minor offences, break and enter and theft over $5,000, I would ask her if she has ever been the victim of a property crime. I have been and it is very invasive and intrusive for an individual to come into our home when we are home or even if we are not home and rummage around and go through our personal effects looking for whatever might be of value that they might be interested in, such as CDs, DVDs, big-screen TVs. It is very invasive to have an individual come into one's homes and cause damage and steal.

The short answer to her question is that the bill would address what Canadians are telling us, which is that the rights of victims and law-abiders require precedence over the rights of those who break the law.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech and all the work he has done to get tough on crime. I must say that in my constituency of Oshawa this is something that I hear repeatedly. My constituents are outraged and seriously offended that this House tried to put forward legislation to get tough on crime and the bill was gutted by the opposition.

Quite often, the reality is that these criminals commit these crimes repeatedly and, for whatever reason, they are not convicted. There are pleas and there are changes. It is about time we started to listen to victims.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on why he thinks certain members of this House may be against this really important legislation that would address listening to Canadian. Could he also comment on the difference between rehabilitation in a system and punishment and why sometimes rehabilitation is impossible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with many Canadians in my role as a member of the justice committee and they have certainly indicated their outrage at these types of sentences

Why do the members opposite take a differing view? I guess I am not in the best place to answer that but, as my colleague, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, seemed to indicate, issues with regard to the individual's background and perhaps a disadvantaged background, in some people's view, are more relevant and ought to be given priority in sentencing over the damage caused to individuals and the rights of victims and, most important, law-abiders. I disagree with that. The member will need to have that debate with someone who shares that view.

However, with respect to rehabilitation, the hon. member for Oshawa is quite right. Serial property offenders are very prevalent in cities. In Winnipeg, Vancouver and in my home city of Edmonton we have individuals who have 10, 20 and sometimes 50 convictions for property crimes and rehabilitation appears to be not within their sights. For individuals such as those, I would suggest that deterrents, both specific deterrents to that individual requires a period of incarceration, but also general deterrents.

People who read the papers and watch the six o'clock news need to know that individuals involved in serious and serial property crimes who have proven they are probably beyond rehabilitation by the serial nature of their activity will be spending a period of time behind bars and that incarceration awaits anyone else who might follow in their footsteps. Therefore, both specific and general deterrents are served when the House approves these amendments.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of rehabilitation versus punishment comes down to the ability of a judge to look at a situation.

The member asked if any of us had ever been a victim of property crime. I have been a victim of numerous property crimes because I also lived with people coming out of prison. I would say that the vast majority of these offenders are just dumb. They do dumb crimes for dumb reasons again and again. Sometimes it takes a judge to say that someone who is an OxyContin addict needs help. There are other people who are real bad apples and they need to go to jail. Some of the people who came through our house were rehabilitated because they were given the chance. Sometimes it was a 10th hour and 11th hour chance but the judge would say that if they go into this and succeed that people we will work with them. That is the issue of discretion.

When the member says that we ought to walk the walk and get tough on crime, to me that sounds like one of their ten percenters. Our obligation here is to be smart on crime.

I would ask the member if he agrees that it is incumbent upon all members, regardless of whether they put out the 10% attack mailings or they receive those 10% attack mailings, the fundamental issue is that we need to be smart on where we go and that comes down, at the end of the day, not to teach slogans but to discretion, and that is the issue we are discussing here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention although I do not entirely understand his question.

With respect to discretion, it is our experience, based not only on the study of conditional sentences but on proposed amendments to the Criminal Code generally, that judicial discretion has not worked in the interests of the Canadian public. The Canadian public has lost faith and confidence in the judicial system when they see individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes, crimes against individuals, such as assaults and arson, sentenced not to a period of incarceration but to a conditional sentence, often sentenced to house arrest where they are able to serve their sentence in the comfort of their own home with their big screen TV and library of CDs and DVDs.

I would suggest that this has nothing to do with ten percenters or slogans. It has to do with bringing the justice system into disrepute. I would suggest that these types of conditional sentence do that and that Bill C-42, when passed, will restore confidence--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beauséjour.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate today in the House on Bill C-42. It is at second reading. It is the beginning of what I hope will be an expeditious process to study this important change to sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code.

I can say at the outset that the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill at second reading, to send it to the committee. We obviously want to hear from experts and those involved in the criminal justice system as to what the effects of restricting conditional sentences will be.

However, certainly at first blush, we think that there is a lot of merit in restricting the use of conditional sentences, particularly for the most serious crimes. That is why when it comes to a vote at second reading, hopefully expeditiously, we will be supporting the legislation.

Bill C-42 amends section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to eliminate the reference to serious personal injury offences and restricts the availability of conditional sentences, colloquially known as house arrest, for offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life imprisonment, and for other specific offences prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert, the Minister of Justice and others often refer to conditional sentences as house arrest. There can be a great deal of misleading information about in fact what the imposition of such a sentence represents. Defence lawyers have told me that frequently a conditional sentence or a term of imprisonment in the community, a house arrest as it is colloquially known, may be for a longer period of time than would be a sentence in closed custody, a sentence of incarceration in a correctional facility.

As the House will know, when somebody breaches the terms of a conditional sentence and is brought back before the court, for example for breaching the terms of house arrest, for leaving their property except during certain hours as deemed allowable by the judge, or for a breach of whatever nature, even a minor breach of a conditional sentence, the presumption is then that the person will finish the remainder of that sentence in closed custody.

I accept that as a reasonable presumption. If the court decides to give someone a break on a conditional sentence because, in the opinion of the court, the person does not represent a threat or a risk to the community and because rehabilitation can be better served in the community, then if one chooses to breach the terms of that conditional sentence it seems reasonable one should then face the rest of that sentence term in closed custody. However, as I said, that can often represent a longer period of time.

Therefore the idea that conditional sentences are handed out to serious offenders by courts that then allow people to go home and serve their time on their sofa is a mass simplification of a necessary tool for the justice system.

That being said, I think all members of the House can acknowledge, and other members who have spoken on this issue have correctly pointed out, that the judicial system falls into a loss of public confidence when the imposition of conditional sentences applies in cases that appear to be unreasonable, in cases where for example we have serious white-collar crime, serious fraud involving in many cases millions of dollars or as I said earlier, cases involving violence or personal injury.

I think we all accept that those who commit the most serious crimes should face serious consequences. To restrict the ability of courts to use conditional sentences in those circumstances can in fact be very reasonable.

As I said a moment ago, there is a mass simplification of conditional sentencing, particularly by this government which contends that various types of offenders sentenced to imprisonment are simply sent home, in their communities.

Things are not that simple. I was somewhat surprised to hear the member for Edmonton—St. Albert say that, in the vast majority of cases or at least many cases, judicial discretion had not worked.

We are not as demanding of judges as the Conservative Party seems to be.

The time has come, and I accept responsibility for that, to tell our courts that, as many media have reported recently, those who commit some of the most serious crimes, often economic crimes, and white-collar criminals are not facing severe enough sentences. We believe that it would be appropriate for Parliament to decide to send our courts a very clear message by curtailing or limiting the judges' ability to impose conditional sentences for such crimes.

Limiting judicial discretion is something the government is really fond of. I was amazed to hear about the Minister of Public Safety recognizing that his strategy was to build new prisons and expand existing ones. The vast majority of inmates serve their sentences in prisons under the purview of the provincial governments.

I would like to point out a grave concern I have with respect to Bill C-42. Should the number of offenders facing sentences of imprisonment in correctional establishments rise, then we as a Parliament, and certainly the government, have a duty to make better programs available in these establishments, and I would go as far as to say a duty to share with the provincial governments the costs associated with these changes to the Criminal Code.

The government likes to increase the number of people, convicted persons, who will face prison in closed custody and correctional facilities. At the same time I do not think the government has taken sufficient responsibility with provincial authorities to share the burden that these changes represent to provincial correctional systems.

I can use something from my own province of New Brunswick that happened last week as an example. The Government of New Brunswick had to send a memo to judges in the provinces indicating that they could no longer incarcerate people on intermittent sentences, those serving time for example traditionally on weekends, because the provincial jails were full.

A lot of this has to do with those waiting in correctional facilities pending their trial, those on remand, as it is known, which is also in many cases a situation that needs changes. That is why we have supported changes to restrict the ability to grant double time in remand circumstances. However it is not good enough to simply change the Criminal Code and tell the provinces to deal with it or tell the Correctional Service of Canada to deal with it.

Last week I had the opportunity to talk with people from the Correctional Service of Canada who work at the Dorchester Penitentiary in my constituency, at the Shepody Healing Centre, which is the psychiatric hospital in that medium-security federal institution and which looks after federally incarcerated inmates from all over Atlantic Canada as well as from some provinces such as Quebec. They tell me they do not have sufficient resources now to look after the seriously mentally ill inmates who are incarcerated or even those who are found not criminally responsible but are incarcerated for security reasons at a hospital like the Shepody Centre in Dorchester.

To make changes to sentencing provisions is part of the solution, and the government likes to focus on tougher sentences. Where it falls down and where Bill C-42 in our view does not do enough is in dealing with some of the factors that lead to a criminal activity or to criminal conduct. A government that cuts, as the government has, the crime prevention funding and at the same time talks about building larger prisons I think has missed the important balance that is necessary in an effective criminal justice policy.

My colleague from Ajax—Pickering, our critic on public safety issues, has done a lot of work and has recently published a number of interesting articles that highlight the government's failure to have crime prevention policies and its obsessive focus on punishing offenders once a victim has already been created.

To conclude, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I have to say, as I said already, that we will support Bill C-42. We have concerns about the lack of resources available in the federal prison system, as well as at the provincial level. We believe that the government will have to accept the responsibility of sharing these additional costs with its provincial partners.

We do, however, believe and agree that, in some cases, conditional sentencing has brought some unfair criticism upon the judicial system. For that reason, we recognize the need to further restrict the instances where such sentences are deemed appropriate.

The Liberal Party does not think, as the Conservatives do, that judicial discretion has not worked. We think that Parliament has a role to say to judges that these are the kinds of circumstances that should be eligible for terms of conditional imprisonment, conditional sentences or imprisonment in the community. In many cases for first-time offenders and non-violent offences involving minor crimes, this is precisely the way to improve the chance of rehabilitation and to prevent that person from reoffending once he or she completes his or her sentence.

We believe there is an important role for conditional sentences, but we believe in the case of very serious fraud, in the case of serious repeat property offences, in the case of sexual offences, in the case of offences involving bodily harm, Parliament has a role to say to the judiciary that those are not the kinds of offences for which a convicted person should be eligible for a conditional sentence. That is why we think there is considerable merit in adopting Bill C-42.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is based on the true reason we are dealing with this issue at this stage. As we know, we are dealing with the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression. We have a GDP that has gone from first to last in the G8. We have lost approximately 500,000 full-time jobs. EI is in crisis. We have a potential pandemic on the horizon with a vaccination process that is lagging behind other western countries.

Could my hon. colleague please explain exactly what the Conservatives are trying to correct at this stage, what percentage of sentences are actually conditional and what kind of serious problem it is or is not, and why we are dealing with this now rather than dealing with the economic crisis?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Brampton West, who himself was a distinguished lawyer before his election to the House, knows a great deal about criminal justice issues and about justice policy. His voice in our caucus and in Parliament is always one that is listened to attentively when it comes to issues involving justice and public safety.

My colleague identifies a concern we have. The government members last week had a very, very bad week in which they were found, for example, to be presenting at infrastructure announcements Government of Canada cheques with the Conservative logo and fake signatures of members of Parliament pretending somehow that they sign cheques for public funds to hand out for needed infrastructure programs. We have heard allegations of huge partisan interference in the allocation of programs as important as those for access to disability funding. The reason the government decided this week to put such an emphasis on justice issues is precisely as my colleague from Brampton West alluded to, to change the channel on their failure to deal effectively with serious economic concerns or to address issues of unemployment.

The people in my riding do not understand why many justice bills are left on the order paper in the House for over 100 days, are introduced at the end of the session in June, left on the order paper and then at the last minute simply recycled with a whole bunch of old announcements when a news conference is called at a local hotel and for the fourth time they announce that they intend to introduce a bill on white-collar crime. Much of this is a gimmick from the government to mask its failure on much more important matters as well.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

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

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

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

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