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?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understood the explanations by the hon. member for Beauséjour, especially at the end. It seems to me that his conclusion is totally inconsistent with what he said beforehand. I understand that he recognizes, as we do, that this is an important tool that must be given to judges to handle offenders who appear before the court for the first time for offences punishable by 14 years or more, and God knows there are a lot of them in the Criminal Code. Quite often these are offences committed by young people under peer pressure.

Should we not give the judge this tool? Did I understand him correctly at the end of his speech that despite everything he said, he has decided to support this bill?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for giving me the opportunity to clarify my remarks.

We support the important notion that judges are in the best position to consider the circumstances of the charges brought before the court and to determine appropriate sentences for those found guilty. In contrast to the Conservatives, we accept the basic principle that the court is best suited to determining an appropriate sentence.

However, we recognize that Parliament's role is to tell courts and judges across the country that under certain circumstances, conditional sentences do not reflect the seriousness of the conviction of the person brought before the court.

For example, if a person is convicted of serious fraud or a serious criminal offence, such as a sexual offence, and is given one of the harshest sentences in our Criminal Code, we believe that Parliament is fully justified in telling the courts that, in certain cases, we will restrict the court's ability to use conditional sentences. For all practical purposes, that is what Bill C-42 seeks to do.

For example, if the bill had completely eliminated the courts' freedom to use conditional sentences, we would have voted against it, just as we voted against Bill C-9 in the last Parliament because we thought that it placed undue restrictions on the courts' ability to impose these sentences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I remain convinced that conditional sentences are an extremely important tool that should be given to judges to use in many cases of a first offence. Conditional sentences have practically replaced what used to be known as suspended sentences, even though suspended sentences still exist in the Criminal Code. I seem to remember that judges were starting to hand down suspended sentences when I began practising law. In 1966 at least, suspended sentences already existed, and judges were very happy to have such a tool, because it meant that they could dangle a sword of Damocles over the heads of people they set free.

I remember that I used to explain to my convicted clients that the term “suspended sentence” was very appropriate. The judge had suspended the sentence he could have handed down. He had suspended it on certain conditions: if the convicted offender met those conditions, the judge would not have the right to hand down the sentence he had suspended, but if the offender did not meet one of those conditions or committed another offence, he would be brought before the same judge, who would quite often impose a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. Quite often, too, it would be a life sentence.

But from an administrative standpoint, if I had been a judge, I would have used this tool like some judges I knew well. In Quebec, people of my generation will remember Judge O'Meara, who was a judge of great integrity. He was remarkable. But when people were brought before him, he always sentenced them to prison. In the vast majority of cases, that was enough. It was a warning from the court and it scared the offender, who did not come back. I never had any statistics, but it was said at the time that 90% of offenders never came back. The remaining 10% were the ones we had trouble with, the ones who were back in court repeatedly. So the system worked.

For it to work, once the individual was arrested, he had to be brought before the same judge, who was already playing another role or might be going to another jurisdiction. Things got so complicated that, in the end, this requirement was not enforced. Since most of the time, people were brought before the judge because they had committed another offence, it was actually the second judge who took into account the fact that they had received a suspended sentence and who handed down a stiffer sentence for the second offence.

When conditional sentences were first being handed out—I was reminded of this again recently in Montreal, where there was a case involving a young man—I said that this would replace suspended sentences. And that is what happened. The advantage of conditional sentences is that the sentence is already determined.

I cannot get over what I heard the Minister of Justice saying this afternoon in this House. He talked about these white-collar criminals who defrauded people by extorting exorbitant amounts of money and who will be serving their sentence in the comfort of their own living room. Let us get real. Conditional sentences can only apply to sentences under two years and therefore to less serious cases.

I am somewhat familiar with the prison system and I know that the majority of people there are unfortunate souls. I can assure you that the comfort of their living room would seem like a rather uncomfortable cell to us and quite often even more uncomfortable than the totally sanitized and controlled cells found in the prisons. When I hear about people in the comfort of their own living room, with their CD collection and their big screen television and so on, we are not talking about the type of people you find in prison.

I was saying that again this morning in another case.

The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert must also know that recently in Ontario, 39% of inmates were diagnosed with mental illness. This corresponds to what someone was saying before about the intellectual level of the majority of these offenders who commit petty crimes. The advantage of conditional sentences is that the length of the sentence is known. When an offence is committed, the offender goes to prison. It is simple. He finishes his sentence there.

There is not a single study out there to show that conditional sentences did not achieve the intentions of the legislation. In the Criminal Code, 33 pages deal with sentences in general. The government seems to forget that the first sections set out the major objectives and principles. I will read section 718 to illustrate that the goal is for a sentence to strike a balance, which will vary according to the offence and according to the people who are convicted:

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

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

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

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

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

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

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

A lot of crimes are committed by first-time offenders, people who will never be arrested again. Is the solution really to forego the conditional sentence and to send them to crime school? Is it really to separate them from their communities? Is it really to prevent them from having a job? Is it really to interrupt their schooling, if that is the case? Do we not want to “promote a sense of responsibility...and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community”? It is not a good idea to send offenders to prison in order to rehabilitate them. That is like sending someone who is not sick to a place filled with germs or contagious diseases.

These examples are nothing I have ever heard of before. When judges give a conditional sentence, they take into account the fact that the individual will be at home. They do not give that option to people they feel should go to prison to be separated from society. Judges have good reasons for imposing a conditional sentence. For example, they may want to allow an individual to continue to work. Interrupting work or causing first-time offenders to lose their jobs will encourage them even more to get involved with the wrong people and will increase their chances of re-offending. That is one of the things that judges look at.

Very often, the offender needs to continue to work in order to support his family. Separating the offender from his family would punish the entire family, but the judge could impose conditions that would be difficult enough for the offender. In some cases, we want to give offenders a chance to make reparation for the crime they committed. We want to take them out of crime school.

These sentences allow for some form of punishment to be imposed. Those who believe that it is not punishment could perhaps try spending a week in their homes without going out. I have read articles about people who tried it and, in general, they did not really like it.

In general, when judges allow these people to leave their homes, it is so they can keep a job or continue their studies, which will ultimately ensure that they are rehabilitated and provide them with the opportunity to make restitution. It is a tool that enables judges to ensure the rehabilitation of first-time offenders in thousands of cases.

I heard the beginning of the speech by the member from Edmonton—St. Albert, which was remarkable. In my opinion, he gave an excellent explanation of the rationale for establishing conditional sentences. When he went on to say that these sentences should be abolished, he initially spoke of the public's loss of confidence in the justice system.

It seems to me that when we find out that the majority of people unfortunately have a poor opinion of the justice system, and that this opinion is not warranted, it is up to the government to provide the information to change people's minds. I understand how people feel about the justice system although it is never as radical as what we hear in this place. I have the impression that, in this regard, there is truly a huge cultural difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada. We often see articles about rehabilitation and excessive incarceration.

The media, by their very nature, tend to focus on exceptional cases. Articles in that regard appear from time to time in magazines like L'Actualité in French, or Maclean's in English, for example. Generally speaking, the news we get presents the exceptional cases. Success in rehabilitation is not exceptional. On the contrary, it is the norm, but it is made up of many, tiresome, little cases or those involving people who do not want to see their names in the paper in connection with examples of rehabilitation. Instead, the media are full of exceptional sentences. Most of the time, when we see sentences that appear impossibly or unbelievably lenient, if we dig a little deeper, we will often see any number of reasons to justify the judge's sentence, but the people who talk about lenient sentences do not give us those reasons.

So, newspapers do not generally keep us very well informed about what is happening. I am not surprised that the government has not brought forward any objective studies to show that conditional sentences can lead to problems and that they have not resulted in the advantages we hoped to see when they were created, as so eloquently described by the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

Judging the seriousness of crimes by the maximum sentence that is attached to them is rather dangerous, because it can apply to cases that are extremely different, for instance, breaking and entering into a private home. Of course, in principle, our homes are our castles, and should be impenetrable. It is extremely traumatic to come home and realize that thieves have broken in.

Sometimes it is even worse. They have turned everything upside down or raided our liquor cabinet or defaced the walls. It is a very traumatic experience. But in most cases, things do not go nearly as far. I have noticed that if there is someone at home, thieves will not enter. Petty thieves, those who are pushed by their peers, do not want to enter a house if someone is there. Some will throw a party at an unoccupied cottage. I am not condoning that. On the contrary, I would not want to find out that my son has been involved in that type of behaviour. Nonetheless, I have noticed that quite often petty thieves are influenced by a group.

They are liable to life imprisonment. It seems to me that these are cases where, to make the offenders realize what they have done, a judge can tell them that the maximum sentence for such an offence is life imprisonment, but given that this is their first offence, that they were influenced by others, he will give them a two-year prison sentence. What is more, since it is their first conviction, they could serve their sentence at home, but under certain conditions. They will have to continue their studies, be home every night of the week, with permission to go out just once, and so on. The judge establishes a certain number of conditions. In the vast majority of cases, these people will never appear before the court again.

However, if they are sent to prison they will end up in an environment that is completely different than their family life. That is no place to learn how to live an honest life. I know very few people who left prison a better person than when they entered. Prisons are full of thugs and people learn that behaviour there.

I just want to point out one thing here. Quebeckers were recently floored by charges brought against a big star, one of the biggest stars in hockey history, as big a star as Maurice Richard. Guy Lafleur was found guilty of perjury. He was accused of having made two contradictory statements while under oath. There is no telling which of the two was true, but one of them had to be false. That constitutes perjury. Perjury is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Guy Lafleur would not be eligible for a conditional sentence. That is not what he got. He got a big fine and a suspended sentence. Frankly, can the member for Beauséjour tell me one more time why it would have been so scandalous for him to get a conditional sentence? The sentence he ended up with was just one level lower, a suspended sentence.

I mentioned comfortable living rooms. I can confirm that they might not be desirable. I was surprised to hear the member for Edmonton—St. Albert suggest that, given his experience with criminal law. Most of the people receiving these sentences do not have comfortable living rooms with big-screen TVs. In fact, I am almost certain that there are more TVs in prison, and better ones than these people have at home, and probably more CDs to choose from. It is not a nice place to be. In many cases, these people get into trouble in public places because they live on the streets, and they live on the streets because home is not a very comfortable place to be.

I think it is a bad idea to take this essential tool away from judges because it can help rehabilitate those who have just committed their first crime. That is why, unlike the member for Beauséjour, we agree with the arguments expressed by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert at the beginning of his speech and we will vote against this bill. This is yet another bill introduced for ideological and perhaps even electoral reasons. It has nothing to do with science.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that under a Conservative government, or under a Conservative form of justice, we would have judicial discretion, which has been a part of the system for many years. The question really becomes this. Why are we appointing judges whom we are going to tell what to do and not give them any discretion?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have stopped asking myself that question. The Conservatives never seem to trust judges. But that is not what is in the bill. Anywhere there is judicial discretion, they want to impose minimum sentences.

I still think that the Conservatives are playing a game. They are doing this for one reason only, and that is to gain a political advantage. We hear it all the time when they talk. They never say that the reality of the crime necessitates a particular action; they say that they are listening to their constituents.

We have to be careful. Even though someone may think that we should have harsh sentences, any time that they have been presented with a specific case, people who said that they were in favour of harsh sentences became much more reasonable and, in general, tend to be on the same page as the judges.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate and ask questions of my colleagues because these are the issues that Canadians have sent us here to deal with. These are serious issues with profound implications.

My Conservative colleagues keep talking about how we have to walk the walk by getting tough on crime, yet over the last four years they have dragged bills out, let them die and then bring them back. This is a bit of a circus for them.

This is not about getting tough on crime. The Conservatives use these days to get tough on the taxpayer. They take people's statements out of context and then they use taxpayers' dollars to send attack mailings to trash people's credibility and to trash them personally.

Every day my constituents ask me what kind of people make such cheap, dumbed down attacks, and then expect taxpayers to pay for them. I tell them the former defence minister cannot seem to stand on his own two feet and say anything credible in the House. He is attacking the Liberal leader. I have no problem with someone attacking the Liberal leader, but I do not think the former minister should be using taxpayers' dollars to do that.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague why he thinks we have seen this endless parade of crime bills and dumbed down crime talk? Why are taxpayers' dollars being used to fund a Conservative attack campaign in every riding in this country? Why are Canadian taxpayers paying for Conservative personal, vitriolic and embarrassing attack mailings? This is embarrassing for Canadian politics.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have already given my opinion on this subject. I think that they are dragging this out because they think it is a politically smart thing to do, that it will win them votes, and that they will win more votes by taking an extremist stand than by being reasonable and trying to get people to understand.

It is odd that, in this case, we have not been told what the provincial attorneys general think, because all offenders who are sent to prison under this legislation will be sent to provincial prisons. In fact, conditional sentences apply only to sentences shorter than two years.

I think this is all for the purpose of an election. For example, why did it take them so long to introduce Bill S-4? It was already being considered by the previous Liberal government. But it is now 2009, and they have been in power since 2006. If they had asked us, we would have told them we supported it. And we did support it.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's position interesting. In fact, these sentences are less than two years.

Given that these sentences are less than two years and are therefore served in provincial prisons, I would like to know how much money the government is prepared to transfer to the provinces, particularly Quebec. Since Quebec is going to have to pay, has the government already talked about transferring money to fill positions? People will be needed to work in these prisons. New prisons may even have to be built. These sentences will still come under the provincial governments. If the government is prepared to build prisons in Quebec and invest money to incarcerate these people on a first offence, then we need to know. To date, we have not heard this government say even once that it was prepared to transfer money.

I would like to know whether my colleague has had any information that we have not had here today.

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

I think it is safe to say that if there had been any discussions with provincial attorneys general, they would have told us. If there had been any plans to help the Government of Quebec or other provincial governments to build prisons, not only would they give us the amount, but maybe we would see a Conservative member handing over a giant cheque bearing the Conservative logo and the signature of the member of the riding where the prisons were being built.

It must be understood that these sentences are under two years, so they will be served in provincial jails. Nothing has been said about the increased costs that the government is transferring to the provinces. It is a terrible thing to take away measures that help rehabilitation, and therefore contribute to the long-term safety of society, and force the provinces to spend money they had not planned on spending.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East, Access to Information; the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Status of Women; and the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, AbitibiBowater.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-42. This is a bill that I think evokes the kinds of opinions and emotions of Canadians and members of the House that cause us all to really be careful, cautious and thoughtful in how we approach it.

Crime is a serious issue in this country. The victims of crime in this country are an important group of people who have a particular vested interest in seeing that our society moves forward in a positive, progressive manner. Crime is a nuanced issue. It is a complicated issue and it is a simple issue at the same time.

What is simple is what Canadians agree on. We all want crime rates in our country to be reduced as much as humanly possible. We all want people who commit acts of crime and who deviate from the path of acceptable conduct to cease doing so. We all want our cities, our schools and our workplaces to be safe, where women can walk the streets in safety, where our children can play in playgrounds safely, and where all Canadians can be safe and secure at all times.

What is complicated about this issue is that there are no necessarily simple answers. I fear that this bill is one such example of a Conservative approach to crime that on the surface seems superficially appropriate, but when we delve deeper actually is ineffective and will not achieve the goals that we all have.

The bill would remove conditional sentencing in this country from our courtrooms for any person convicted of a crime that has a maximum sentence of 14 years or more or a crime that is proceeded with by way of indictment that has a penalty of at least 10 years.

That does not mean that the people convicted of those offences necessarily get those sentences. What it means is simply, by the definition of that crime, it would remove the ability of judges to impose a conditional sentence, even when they thought that that was the appropriate way to go.

I will give a little history. Conditional sentencing was introduced in September 1996. Essentially it allows for sentences of imprisonment to be served in the community rather than in a correctional facility. It is a midway point between incarceration and sanctions such as probation or fines.

The conditional sentence was not introduced in isolation but as part of a thoughtful renewal sentencing process that reviewed the Criminal Code. These provisions included the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the defendant. The renewed sentencing provisions set out sentencing principles including a list of aggravating and mitigating circumstances that should guide sentences imposed.

The primary goal of conditional sentences is to reduce the reliance upon incarceration by providing the courts with an alternate sentencing mechanism. In addition, conditional sentences provide an opportunity to further incorporate restorative justice concepts into the sentencing process by encouraging those who have caused harm to acknowledge this fact and be in a position to make reparation.

At the time of their introduction conditional sentences were generally seen as an appropriate mechanism to divert minor offences and offenders away from the prison system. Overuse of incarceration was recognized by many as problematic while restorative justice concepts were seen as beneficial.

However, in practice, conditional sentences are sometimes viewed in a negative light when used in cases of a very serious crime. Concern has been expressed that some offenders are receiving conditional sentences of imprisonment for crimes that are inappropriate. While it may be beneficial to allow persons who are not dangerous to a community, who otherwise would be incarcerated and who have not committed a serious or violent crime to serve their sentence in the community, certain commentators have argued that sometimes the very nature of the offence and the offender require incarceration.

In this respect an intelligent debate can be had in the House about which particular crimes may not be appropriate for conditional sentences and which ones would be so appropriate.

The problem with the bill before the House is that it eliminates all discretion in this regard. It says that 75 separate offences that are over 14 years are simply taken out of the picture when it comes to being a candidate for conditional sentencing, without any regard to the person being sentenced, to the crime that was committed, to the circumstances of the case. That is the complete opposite of a functioning and well thought out approach to justice.

The present Criminal Code says that these are the kinds of offences that presently do not qualify for conditional sentences. These are offences for which the person has been convicted that must not be a serious personal injury offence. It cannot include high treason, first degree murder or second degree murder. It cannot involve the use or attempted use of violence against another person, or conduct endangering or likely to endanger the life or safety of another person, or inflicting or likely to inflict severe psychological damage to another person.

Conditional sentences are not available to people who have committed sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm or aggravated sexual assault. The offence cannot be a terrorism offence. It cannot be an offence that involves a criminal organization. None of those offences qualify for conditional sentencing.

In a case where a conditional sentence is being considered, a judge must be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community. I want to pause there.

When the Conservatives say that everything is about public safety, they do not tell the Canadian public that built right into our Criminal Code is that a conditional sentence cannot be imposed when it would endanger the safety of the community. We should think about that. Obviously a conditional sentence will not endanger the community so eliminating it will not have any appreciable effect on the safety of the community because it will not be imposed when it does so in the first place.

A sentencing judge must also be satisfied that the conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing. Insofar as this criterion is concerned, I do not hear my friends on the opposite side of the House ever talk about the legal framework of sentencing. They talk about rhetoric and they talk about fear. They do not talk about the real law that is going on

This is what sentencing objectives include: the denunciation of unlawful conduct; the deterrence of the offender and others from committing offences; the separation of the offender from the community where necessary; the rehabilitation of the offender; the provision of reparation to victims and the community; and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender.

These guidelines are guiding our judges and our judicial system, our prosecutors and our defence lawyers when they are deciding an appropriate sentence in the community. This is not a thoughtless process. It is not a process that anybody takes lightly, and conditional sentences are an important tool in the toolbox. I will get into some interesting and important statistics and numbers to show why that is so.

Conditional sentences are not simply a free pass for an offender to have a free vacation in the community. They are, by their very definition, a sentence of incarceration that is simply served in the community as opposed to a penal institution, and they are always attached with conditions, hence the name. The conditions include the following: to keep the peace and be of good behaviour; to appear before the court when required to do so; to report to a supervisor, as required; to remain within the jurisdiction of the court, unless written permission to go outside that jurisdiction is obtained by the court or the person's supervisor; to notify the court or the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address; and to promptly notify the court or the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation.

Furthermore, optional conditions are designed to respond to the conditions of the individual offender. This is something that my friends on the side opposite do not talk about. They think that one size fits all. A person breaks the law and there is one penalty. In a few minutes I will speak to why that is a blunt, an inaccurate and ineffective approach to punishment.

Conditions that are optional include an order that the offender abstain from consumption of alcohol or drugs, that they attend a drug or alcohol treatment program, that they abstain from owning, possessing or carrying a weapon, that they perform up to 240 hours of community service and any other reasonable condition that the court considers desirable for securing the good conduct of the offender and for preventing the offender's repetition of the same offence or commission of another offence. These are conditions that may not be, often are not, and most of the time are not available to an offender in a penal institution.

Unlike probation, a conditional sentence is a tool that is intended to address both punitive and rehabilitation objectives. As I said earlier, safety of the community is one of the paramount criteria considered by a sentencing judge in imposing a conditional sentence.

The gravity of the offence is clearly relevant to determining whether a conditional sentence is appropriate in the circumstances. A conditional sentence can also provide a significant deterrence if significant and sufficient punitive conditions are imposed.

When the objectives of rehabilitation, reparation and promotion of a sense of responsibility may realistically be achieved, a conditional sentence will likely be the appropriate sanction, subject to considerations of denunciation and deterrence.

In sum, conditional sentencing was enacted in our country both to reduce reliance on incarceration as a sanction and to increase the principles of restorative justice and effectiveness in sentence. Has it worked? The sentences have been in place since 1996. Here we are, 13 years later. Let us look at the numbers and the facts, as opposed to the rhetoric.

Statistics Canada reports that conditional sentences still represent a small proportion of all sentences in Canada. Again, it is nice for the Conservatives to look like they are tough on crime, but what do they do? They attack the certain portion of our sentencing that is a minuscule amount of the sentencing in the country. In addition, the tendency in recent years has been to use conditional sentences less frequently.

Instead of attacking some of the major issues that are causing crime in our country, which I will talk about, like poverty, like lack of opportunities for our youth and young people, like cutting down on education and skills training, what do the Conservatives do? They bring in a bill that attacks conditional sentences, which is a tiny amount of the sentences and is being less frequently used every year. It is a good way to look tough without actually doing anything.

In 2003 conditional sentences accounted for 5.3% of all admissions to adult correctional services. By 2008, this figure had declined to 4.7%.

In 2007-08 of the 107,000 offenders being supervised in the community, the vast majority, 75%, were people on probation, that is people who were serving sentences in penal institutions who had been paroled into the community, 16% were on conditional sentences and 9% were on parole or statutory release.

Once again, Canada's incarceration rate, which my friends opposite like to whip up in the Canadian public that it is increasing, which it actually is not, rose only by 2% from the previous year, notwithstanding that the rate of crime had been dropping. The gain was driven by the growing number of adults being held in remand in provincial/territorial jails while awaiting trial or sentence.

Recent increases in the incarceration rate follow a period of relatively steady decline from 1996. On any given day in 2008, an average of 36,000 adults and 2,000 youth aged 12 to 17 years were in custody in Canada.

Canada's incarceration rate tends to be higher than those of most western European countries, yet lower than that of the United States, by a long shot. By contrast, in 2007 Sweden had a rate of 74 people in custody per 100,000. By contrast, the rate in the United States for adults alone was 762, and that does not include youth. Canada's incarceration rate was 117 for every 100,000 people.

The imposition of conditional sentences should not only reduce the rate of incarceration, it should also reduce expenditures in the correctional system. This is due to the fact that the average annual inmate cost for persons in provincial/territorial custody, including remand, in 2005-06 was $52,000 and was over $90,000 for a federal inmate.

An earlier survey found that the successful completion of conditional rate of conditional sentence orders fell from 78% to 63% in 2000-01. This of course marks the fact that we are putting an increasing number of conditions on offenders rather than allegations of fresh offenders.

This is the key point. Statistics Canada has found that adult offenders who spent their sentences under supervision in the community were far less likely to become re-involved with correctional authorities within 12 months of their release than those who had been placed in a correctional institution.

The study found that in four provinces 11% of people who were under community supervision became re-involved with correctional authorities within 12 months and among those in custody 30% became re-involved, more than double the proportion of those under community supervision.

Why is this? This is because in a study that concentrated upon the victims of crime and their attitudes toward conditional sentencing, the benefits of conditional sentencing were viewed by them to include the fact that most rehabilitation programs could be more effectively implemented when the offender was in the community rather than in custody, that prison was no more effective a deterrent than more severe intermediate punishments, such as enhanced conditions on home confinement, that keeping offenders in custody was significantly more expensive than supervising them in the community and that the public had become more supportive of community-based sentencing particularly restorative justice measures, except for serious crimes of violence.

The government is following an out-moded, U.S.-style George Bush approach to prisons that does not work. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, who cannot be accused of being soft on crime in the state of California, is moving in a completely opposite path than the Conservative government. Why? Instead of building more prisons and sending people to prison for longer periods of time in more harsh conditions, many states have realized that this is costing them unbelievable amounts of money. In some cases, state budgets are facing bankruptcy. Most important, it is not even effective.

After some states have spent billions of dollars on increasing incarceration, what have they found? They are out billions of dollars and it is not even effective because crime rates in their communities are not falling. What a double waste. They spend more taxpayer money and do not even have safer communities.

I will talk about some things the government is doing that is the compete opposite of making our communities safe. It is closing single-member RCMP detachments in communities under 5,000 in British Columbia. It is closing the western Canada duty office in the home city of my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, and concentrating that office in Ottawa.

I visited Kent, a maximum security institution, last week. The CORCAN section of the prison, which is the section that consists of large, open areas where prisoners are supposed to make things, build equipment and learn employment skills, was empty. It was closed. What do we do with inmates when they are in custody? We lock them in their cells and we do not give them the educational or skills training they need that might give them a chance not to reoffend when they come out of prison.

There is a complete shortage of all kinds of programs in our prison system, from programs that would help offenders learn employment skills to getting education, to simply getting the kind of social, emotional and psychological treatment they need. Eighty per cent of prisoners in our prison system suffer from mental illness and most of those people do not get anywhere near the treatment they need to adequately deal with their problems.

Why is this important? Because the New Democrats believe in one thing. The best way to keep our communities safe is to ensure that offenders do not reoffend when they come out of prison. That is an obvious statement. We do not believe that because we are bleeding heart, compassionate people. We believe that because of self-interest.

This means people in prison ought to get the kinds of programs they need. It means that every person coming in contact with our justice system ought to have a judge, a prosecutor and a defence lawyer adequately look at sentencing alternatives that are tailored to the person, to ensure the person does not reoffend. Taking away the tool of conditional sentencing not only does not accomplish that but will make our communities less safe.

The most important people in this whole debate are the victims of crime in our country. Victims of crime in are not served when we adopt policies that make it more likely that offenders will reoffend when they come out of our justice system. It is not good policy. It is not being smart on crime.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out two things from my NDP colleague's speech. He concluded his speech with the number one most important group in this debate, the victims of crime. He began his speech with the principles regarding sentencing, number one of those being denunciation.

I would like to ask my colleague, with regard to the list removing conditional sentences on crimes like robbery, kidnapping, luring children, sexual assault, if it is not inadequate denunciation to have these folks serve their sentence in their home. It is essential that the public have faith in the justice system, with denunciation being one of the key principles and justice being the key issue so that when someone does a serious crime, they do serious time.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is exactly right. The New Democrats agree that there are a number of offences for which a conditional sentence is not appropriate. There are a number of offences for which the only appropriate response is that the offender be put in a penal institution for an appropriate sentence. As I pointed out, the present Criminal Code, which I would commend my friend to read, already precludes many of the people that he mentioned from qualifying for conditional sentences.

At present there are some very minor offences that the bill would preclude from conditional sentencing, such as theft over $5,000. For example, there may be an 18-year old man who steals a car that costs $5,500. As bad as that is, as important as it is to denounce that, a conditional sentence may be an appropriate tool in that case, if that young person would benefit from it and if it would make it more likely that person would not reoffend. That is why conditional sentences are simply one tool in the tool box that we must leave in our justice system if we truly are concerned about victims of crime. I want that young man who steals a car not to steal a car again. A federal penitentiary, and I have been in 11 penitentiaries in the last two months, is not necessarily a place we would want to put someone if our goal really is to help them not reoffend. The bill would take away that discretion and make us less safe in many cases.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite from Vancouver, B.C. for his very comprehensive and informed remarks. The member is a member of the bar and it strikes me that during the 39th Parliament we had a bill almost precisely the same as this come before us. It went to committee which did due diligence and found that in the area of conditional sentencing, it was not appropriate the way it had been designed and, in their opinion, it was not going to have the effects that government members were asking for and hoping for.

I heard the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale speak a few minutes ago about denunciation. When a person goes to trial, there is media coverage of the event, with reporting in local newspapers of the outcome of the trial and the sentence the person receives, so I believe the denunciation is there. I share the opinion of the member opposite, that we have to prevent crime instead of always responding in a knee-jerk fashion. We have laws concerning dangerous driving causing death and various charges can be laid. We had the street racing law come through here recently which basically meant new charges could be laid, but the outcomes would be the same as far as the person was concerned. All of this appears to be a knee-jerk reaction.

I will not be cynical enough to say that the Conservative Party is doing this to get media, but it does not seem to have the kind of insightful consideration that something of this nature deserves, especially in the case of judges and their ability to decide proper sentencing and to take into account all aspects of the crime.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his thoughtful comments and commend him on being a strong voice of reason in protecting the safety of his community.

The member is absolutely right that in the last Parliament or in the one before, Bill C-9 was introduced by the government, and at that point it purported to remove violent crimes from consideration for conditional sentences. The reality is that 75% to 85% of crimes for which conditional sentences are given are not violent at all.

That is what I think the problem is here, philosophically. My colleagues on the other side of the House want to take all discretion out of the system. They want to have a sledge hammer approach, a “one size fits all” approach, much like the three strikes and one is out system or mandatory minimum sentences in the United States. The problem is they do not work.

That philosophy might be worth considering if it worked. Over 20 states in the United States have implemented those exact policies for the last 20 years, and 20 out of 20 of those states are going backwards. All they found was that they were bankrupting their state economies and their crime rates were remaining untouched.

The bottom line is we should not make penal or criminal policy in this country based on what is good rhetoric on a street corner. We should make sound policy decisions based on policies that will keep our communities safe.

Once again, I fear this bill does not do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that this is the second or third time I have heard the member speak. His point of view is always well supported by thorough research. The facts presented are very relevant to what he is saying. Naturally I share the same philosophy. Thus, I will not criticize anything he has said. In fact I am ashamed I did not conduct equally pertinent, convincing research.

However, I do have a difficult question to ask him. I think he has some experience in the application of criminal law. At present, judges give conditional sentences, depending on the case, because they are convinced that the individual should not go to prison. They believe that the best way to ensure that he or she stops offending is by imposing an appropriate sentence.

What will judges do if this tool is taken away from them?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his kind thoughts. That is very high praise from someone who I know has spent a lifetime committed to making our justice system in this country and in his province of Quebec a better system.

I know that he was minister of justice in Quebec and has an outstanding record of service to our society, not only in terms of keeping our communities safe and making our justice system better, but comprehensively across the board.

With respect to his question, any time we tie the hands of our judges or our judicial system and we take away the tools that go into considered, tailored, thoughtful approaches to sentencing, I think we err. I think suspended sentences, conditional sentences, exploratory and innovative sentencing, guidelines that we see in the aboriginal community, and in fact good old-fashioned jail time in prisons are all appropriate measures that have their place in our justice system.

Taking away this tool from judges in our country, which once again is a very seldom-used and effective tool, will hurt our system and make Canadians less safe as a result.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments. He, of course, lives in the same area of the country as I do. He would agree with me that our area of the country is suffering through some of the worst gang- and drug-related crime we have ever witnessed.

I would challenge the member to review his party's position on removing conditional sentences for some of the most serious crimes.

I have a list here which I would like to challenge him on. For example, in the case of sexual assault, what in a sexual assault should merit an offender receiving time at home? How should kidnapping or the trafficking of human beings including children merit a conditional sentence? Regarding something that is really close to my heart, the luring of children for sexual purposes, what in that would qualify someone to serve their time at home?

I would challenge him and ask him to respond.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

There are 30 seconds left for the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the types of offences that my friend has mentioned are precisely the types of offences that conditional sentences are probably not appropriate for. I would challenge him to come up with some data that shows that those are the sentences that judges are giving conditional sentences on. I highly doubt it.

I would challenge my friend to make good law by going back to the drafting table and coming back with a bill that targets certain kinds of offences that he would like to take out of conditional sentencing, such as those offences, and we will then give that due consideration.

However, targeting all offences, 75 different offences that have sentences over 10 years, including theft over $5,000—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. We will have to move on. Resuming debate. The hon. member for Abbotsford.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to participate in this debate on Bill C-42. This is a bill that proposes to eliminate the use of conditional sentencing for virtually all serious crimes.

What is more, this bill allows our Conservative government to finish a job that, sadly, the opposition parties had prevented us from finishing during the previous Parliament. I note that at least one of those parties has now flipped on the issue. It is actually supporting our bill this time around when it opposed it in the previous Parliament.

It would surprise Canadians to know that, under current conditional sentencing practices, serious criminals are allowed to serve their sentences in the comfort of their homes, in front of their big screen TVs and in front of their computers rather than in a prison. That is why these sentences are often referred to as house arrest.

Canada's Criminal Code allows for house arrest to be imposed when a number of conditions are met, including the following: The crime is not punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence; the court sentences the offender to less than two years in prison; the court is convinced that having the criminal serve the sentence in his own home and community would not endanger the safety of that community, and the court is satisfied that the conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing, one of which, incidentally, is deterrence and denunciation.

There is one additional proviso. The offence must meet the following criteria. It must not be a terrorism offence. It cannot be a crime that is committed on behalf of or as part of a criminal organization or enterprise. Additionally, and I want members to listen very carefully to this, it must not be a serious personal injury offence as defined in the Criminal Code.

That is where the rub lies. The term “serious personal injury offence” is very narrowly defined in the Code. What is more, there are many other crimes that, though not involving direct physical injury to the person, hurt and damage people in very serious and often life-altering ways. These are crimes that are very clearly not legitimate for issuing a sentence that would be served at home, but in fact do qualify for house arrest under our present law. Canadians are rightly angry with such a state of affairs.

Let me give some examples. Although arson does not necessarily involve direct physical injury to another person, it is a very serious offence that most right-thinking Canadians would agree should attract prison time. Imagine a family losing all of their earthly possessions and being unable to return to their home for many months, if ever. Yet, under the current law, the arsonist gets to go back to the comfort of his own home.

Imagine sexual predators attempting to prey on and lure our vulnerable children over the Internet for sexual purposes. Should those offenders not serve some hard time in jail rather than enjoying the comforts of house arrest? Of course they should, yet many of them do in fact spend their sentences at home.

I just responded to a statement made by the member for Vancouver Kingsway and he responded that there is no proof that these offenders are actually serving their time at home. In fact, if he looks at the case law and sentences, those convicted of luring children are actually spending their sentences in the comfort of their homes.

It goes on. What about those drug lords and traffickers who get rich by selling misery, violence and ultimately death to our children? Why should they be able to qualify, as the law presently provides, to serve their punishment back in the comfort of a home often purchased from the proceeds of crime?

Canadians demand more. With Bill C-42, our Conservative government is further restricting the use of conditional sentences and ending the use of house arrests for all indictable offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or more, regardless of whether serious personal injury is involved. The same will apply to indictable offences for which the maximum prison term is 10 years, where these offences involve the use of a weapon, result in bodily harm or involve the importation, exportation, trafficking or production of drugs.

What is more, Canadians will be pleased to hear that Bill C-42 would finally eliminate the use of house arrest for the following crimes: criminal harassment; sexual assault; kidnapping; human trafficking; theft over $5,000; breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling place; being unlawfully in a dwelling house with intent; arson for fraudulent purpose; and, as I mentioned earlier, luring a child over the Internet for sexual purposes.

I am well aware that some of my colleagues in the House might remind me that our government amended the conditional sentencing regime in Canada once before. That was in December 2007. However, the sad truth is that during the last Parliament, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc used the notion of serious personal injury to water down our Conservative government's efforts to limit conditional sentences. In so doing, the Liberals and the NDP again reinforced the public's perception that they are truly soft on crime.

The opposition parties felt that serious crimes such as robbery should continue to qualify for conditional sentences since they are not defined as a serious personal injury offence. This is all the more surprising to me given that the offence of robbery under section 343 of the Criminal Code includes elements of violence.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have about 14 minutes left to conclude his remarks the next time this bill is before the House.

The House resumed from October 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this bill to amend the Criminal Code.

We have been dealing with a number of bills, but coincidentally I have seen all the bills before. About 120 days ago I saw them. In the last Parliament I saw them. Now we see that the government, which had the support of three opposition parties to pass the last bill and get it moving, has voted against its own bill so that it can force a vote, at which the government will be voting for it. This is yet another example of trying to drag out legislation on criminal justice issues that the House is prepared to deal with.

If you look at the record, Madam Speaker, you will see that the government has blamed everybody else for delaying this legislation. That is the problem. It is extremely important to understand where the backlog is.

Last night, as a matter of fact, in the debate on the private member's bill to put suicide bombings in the definition of terrorist attacks, the government did not allow the mover of the bill to collapse the debate and pass it yesterday for Senator Jerry Grafstein. It is not—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member on his highly relevant speech, but he will be able to continue his comments the next time this bill is before the House.

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business according to the order indicated in today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 is an important bill which should engage Canadians.

There are a number of questions that I want to raise. I will be talking briefly about sentencing. I want to talk about judicial discretion. I would like to talk about some of the implications of this legislation vis-à-vis certain offences and the serious questions that Canadians will want to have answered. As a consequence, the Liberal Party is going to be supporting Bill C-42 at second reading, to go to committee in order to hear from experts.

One of those implications will definitely be the cost of implementing changes to the Criminal Code. As members know, although the Parliament of Canada, the Government of Canada, passes legislation amending the Criminal Code, the responsibility to enforce that legislation in most cases falls to the provinces. There is an important element that has to be addressed, and that is that if we pass a law, there must be reasonable certitude that it will be respected and enforced across the land. However, if there is an impediment to that happening, then Parliament has to address that. It is not good enough to pass a law just because the law makes sense. We have to be able to enforce that law.

Today in the media, members will know, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been asked specifically to start costing out the provisions in a number of pieces of legislation that have been proposed by the government which will have an impact on our ability to enforce the changes proposed in the legislation.

There are some very serious issues and it is going to be very important that this bill go to committee so that we hear from the experts. We all have an opinion here in this place but we need to go to committee. That is where the resources of outside experts from across the land will be available to inform parliamentarians, and that is why we do this.

Second reading allows us to at least raise some issues that we hope the committee itself will address when committee hearings start, and that is important.

For those who are not aware, the summary of this particular bill reads as follows:

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--

--and that is an important part--

--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.

For most people, that will not make any sense whatsoever, so as I was looking at some of the debates so far, I thought it would be important to remind hon. members and Canadians about what conditional sentencing is. When did it come about and why was it there?

The member for Edmonton—St. Albert had a very concise description, and I would simply like to draw on it.

This aspect of conditional sentencing came into being in June of 1994, under then Bill C-41, and it was described as Canada's first comprehensive reform to modernizing sentencing law and procedures since 1892, so it was breaking new ground. It was introduced in the House of Commons, and among its elements was the creation of the concept of a conditional sentence of imprisonment. This meant that sentences of imprisonment of less than two years, if ordered or mandated by a court, could be served in the community under certain conditions and under supervision. This could be done only under statutory conditions such that the court was satisfied that the offender could serve the sentence in the community without endangering the population at large.

Therefore, our system of justice recognized that there were cases where the people who had broken the law and who were subject to imprisonment were, in some cases, not likely to reoffend or to be a risk to society. Often it is said that if one commits a crime there are consequences. One must be responsible and accountable for one's actions and must take one's punishment.

There are cases where someone who, for instance, is convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm to another person and that would prescribe an imprisonment. However, when someone is put in jail, the judges need to look at some other factors. I was looking on the web last night about the various kinds of cases and the conditional sentencing arrangements that were given and this bill would change them.

I want to advise the House of some of these cases. Anything to do with drugs, as far as I am concerned, is very serious and it is something for which I would have a hard time giving a conditional sentence. We must understand that a conditional sentence means not going to jail and living one's life. It is like being on probation. There is a fine line between conditional sentencing and probation. Conditional sentencing usually involves curfews put on people and they cannot leave the house from 6 p.m. until 9 a.m. the next day. It also means that they are only permitted to go to and from work directly, with no stops in between. It also means that they must under prescription check in with someone akin to a probation officer to ensure they are doing all the things under the court order. It is quite restrictive and, in some cases, the length of a conditional sentence may be longer than the period for which they would serve in jail if they were in fact sent to jail for the offence.

There was a case in Alberta recently where 12 men were involved in drug trafficking. One of the persons involved was an 18-year-old with a clean record. He was a bright kid who made a mistake by getting involved with bad people, which happens a lot. He was sentenced to 24 months of conditional sentence and a probation period after that. The court took into account that there may be circumstances under which the person may be less likely to reoffend or get involved in criminal activity if he did not go to jail, which some people have described in this debate as being crime school where one learns how to be a good criminal.

In another case, a 32-year-old New Brunswicker was drinking at a bar and he assaulted a staff member at the bar following an altercation with his girlfriend. He punched the staffer in the bar because the staffer had insulted his girlfriend. Under the law, he should have gone to jail but he was given a conditional sentence.

A Nova Scotia man got one year of conditional sentencing for uttering a death threat but there were other circumstances for justifying giving that conditional sentence.

A Kingston man was given nine months conditional sentence for assault. He has a curfew from 6 p.m. until 9 a.m. the next day, except for going to and from his work.

A woman received a 12 month conditional sentence for punching her husband's girlfriend. She normally would have gone to jail but something happened. She assaulted her husband's girlfriend and she should have gone to jail but the law currently provides that she could get a conditional sentence.

An Edmonton nurse received a 23 month conditional sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm. I do not know the details of the case but it was 23 months of house arrest, although I do not think it is sitting around the house having a good time.

A New Brunswick woman was sentenced to a 12 month conditional sentence plus 3 years probation for concealing the body of her newborn baby who had died. Under the Criminal Code, normally she should have gone to jail but she was given a conditional sentence of 12 months.

A Regina man convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm was given a two year conditional sentence. Another man, who had no hands, was a courier for a drug group. He was given a 12 month conditional sentence plus 2 years probation mainly because he was at risk of being harmed if he was in jail.

Those are the kinds of things that would be covered in Bill C-42 and, if it were to pass as is, all of those people would go to jail. There would be no conditional sentences and no consideration of whether they have family, are the sole bread winners or have a disabled child who needs a father or mother. Those are the kinds of things the judges need to take into consideration.

When I looked at the legislation and read some of the things that would be changed, it drew to my attention that there needs to be some judicial discretion. I believe this is where the Conservatives and the other parties part on justice bills. It has to do with judicial discretion. It has to do with whether we respect the courts and judges to make informed decisions based on criteria and principles.

With regard to sentencing, the fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, and to show respect for the law and the maintenance of a peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives: first, to denounce unlawful conduct; second, to deter the offender and other persons from committing serious offences; third, to separate offenders from society, where necessary; fourth, to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders; fifth, to provide reparations for harm done to victims in the community; and sixth, to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community.

The need for these things was reinforced in a judgment in the year 2000 from Justice Proulx, who, in his ruling said that the provisions on conditional sentencing:

...were enacted both to reduce reliance on incarceration as a sanction and to increase the use of principles of restorative justice in sentencing.

A conditional sentence should be distinguished from probationary measures. Probation is primarily a rehabilitative sentencing tool. By contrast, Parliament intended conditional sentences to include both punitive and rehabilitative aspects. Therefore, conditional sentences should generally include punitive conditions that are restrictive of the offender's liberty. Conditions such as house arrest should be the norm, not the exception

The Supreme Court of Canada finds that there are circumstances where an offender could have the benefit, first, of some rehabilitation component, but also the punitive component. It is important that we never have any understanding that someone is going to commit a crime and not be responsible for his or her actions.

That issue comes to bear when we look at what is happening in the proposed justice bills that have come before Parliament. We have often heard in this place that if people do the crime, they do the time. It tends to indicate that the philosophy is to treat everybody the same, regardless of the circumstances or conditions.

Members will know that there are some 20 principles and guidelines guiding judges, allowing them the latitude to look at a circumstance and find out what best fits that case. Clearly, for the most serious crimes that is not a problem, but in some of the examples I gave, I found it somewhat problematic.

I also want to point out to members that in a recent survey it was found that 39% of inmates in jail in the province of Ontario suffer from some form of mental illness. Having done a lot of work on fetal alcohol syndrome, I am quite aware that many of the people in our jails suffer from alcohol-related birth defects.

Those are the kinds of things on which judges have some discretion. However, Bill C-42 would make it much more difficult for the justice system to treat people who have problems that are beyond the problems they have.

I certainly hope the committee will look at the costs of implementing these kinds of changes to the law. The estimates that I have already seen and that, hopefully, will be confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will show that the cost of implementing these changes to Bill C-42 would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Over 5,000 people who are currently on conditional sentencing would be in jail.

The magnitude of this is very significant. The issues are significant and I hope all hon. members will bring those to committee so we can get it right.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. If the power is taken out of the judgment of the judges, then decisions we make could eventually lead to the debate of why we have judges at all.

There is no question that people who have a crime committed against them feel very angry, upset and despondent about what happened to them. The fact is that many of those crimes are committed by people who started life with a mental or physical challenge. Whatever the challenges are, we are not walking in their shoes.

There are a million reasons why people resort to crime, which is why it is important that judges have the discretion, through a legal system that allows all the facts and bearings of a case to go before a judge or jury of his peers, to make a complete analysis of what the time should be when fitting the crime.

I hear fiscal Conservatives talk about the financial aspects of everything, but when it comes to this, they are very silent on what the actual costs will be. Why does the member believe the Conservative Party is so reluctant to release financial information on what these particular legislations would eventually cost the taxpayers of Canada?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, it is easy to pass laws but to have them enforced and work within our system is another prerequisite. There is no point in passing laws that will never be enforced. It happens. We have heard time and time again that the provinces are strapped and that the courts and jails are full.

It costs about $300 a day on average for an inmate, which is more than a hotel stay. However, by changing this law, 5,000-plus people would go to jail. It means that certain jails would need to be expanded and new jails built. All kinds of additional people would need to be involved. The costs would be very significant and, beyond the capital cost of prisons, much of the cost would fall on the shoulders of the provincial government.

They have clearly said that they do not have the money to do it. They do not have the people, the probationary officers or the staffing in the system to care for this. Does that not mean that we need to do more in terms of identifying those who will not reoffend? We need to allow them to have conditional sentencing or house arrest with the understanding that it is both punitive as well as rehabilitative, and look for more ways in which we can work on crime prevention.

We need prevention. It has never been in any of these bills and that concerns me because prevention is much cheaper than incarceration.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let it go by that the Conservatives like to consider themselves the law and order party but the reality is that the people who uphold law and order in this country, the RCMP, had their salary increases rolled back on December 23 from 3.5% to 1.5% without notification.

What a slap in the face to those hon. men and women who serve our country and go after the bad guys every day. I would like the hon. member's comments on how he and the police in his riding felt just before Christmas when their salary increases were rolled back arbitrarily by the government.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are many people who are involved in the administration and the enforcement of the criminal justice system. Police officers certainly are the front line. We hear year after year how many of them lose their lives in the line of duty, enforcing the laws of Canada. So, I do not disagree with the member. I can, however, enlighten him.

The Department of Justice says that 5,000 more people would be put in jail as a consequence of this and it is estimated that the 5,000 additional inmates would cost the provinces in the range of $250 million to $500 million a year. That is not counting the capital costs. There is no way that the provincial systems currently can accommodate these 5,000 extra inmates. It is also estimated that the capital costs for expanding or building new prisons would be $1.5 billion to $2 billion.

This is the dimension of the problem we have to demonstrate that we will be able to enforce the changes in the law that are currently being presented under Bill C-42.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to ask ourselves why conditional sentences were created.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and his ability to try to get tough on crime.

He indicated during his speech that there are many occasions on which he spoke to his constituents about this issue. I was wondering if the member, for the record, would advise us if he has advised his constituents of any evidence based facts that this would actually reduce crime. If he has, perhaps he could table it in the House or perhaps he would be able to provide it during the committee process.

Has the member been clear with his constituents about the actual financial costs and who will pay for all the additional sentences, jails, prisons and so on?

I have no problems with the perception of getting tough on the worst criminals. I have a bill on child Internet pornography and I would like us to get a lot tougher on child pornographers in this country than we are now. We hear about truth in advertising. We would like to know what the economic costs of the provisions in this bill will be. Who is going to pay for it? Where is the evidence that it would actually reduce crime in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for introducing the bill on child pornography. Child pornography is something which my constituents find offensive.

The question was about who is going to pay for this. Some of this reform will fall on the provincial and territorial governments. The hon. member asked about the cost. What is the cost to society when people continue to commit these crimes and they do not have any deterrents in place whatsoever?

I ask the hon. member about the real cost to society if we do not take these types of action.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the line of questioning around the member's constituents, I have been listening with great interest to the member for Leeds—Grenville. I noted that during his speech he mentioned his constituents and their interest in this important bill. I was wondering if the member could elaborate on why they think the bill is so important.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kenora was elected to the House last year. Since he arrived here he has taken on many of these issues and has shown a great deal of interest. His riding of Kenora is very much like the riding of Leeds--Grenville, and not just in rural ridings but across the country people are concerned about crime.

This is a bill that my constituents find to be very timely. They want to see proper penalties in place for those who commit crimes. They do not want conditional sentences to be used because they do not feel that they act in any way as a deterrent. These are the types of things I was thinking of when I talked about the cost to society in not passing the bill.

I know that the member's constituents want to see the bill passed, as do mine.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member has been here from the beginning of the debate, so I know that he is looking at this carefully. The issue is one of cost versus implementation of the law, as the member is quite aware. I want to know whether the member believes that we should make changes to the Criminal Code if we know that we are unable to provide the funds necessary to enforce those changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, my constituents, and I am sure his constituents in Mississauga South, feel that we should spend the money to implement these changes.

I am just looking at some of the numbers that were provided before, when Bill C-9 was going through the House. The cost, ultimately, was amended to $10.7 million. However, the cost for the original Bill C-9 was $21.7 million. So, I know that Canadians expect their tax dollars to be used wisely, and I know that my constituents expect us to spend money on these types of things.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a financial question because I have a bill, Bill C-201, that deals with veterans. The first thing out of the mouths of the Conservatives was “What is it going to cost?”, not what is best for the veterans, but what it is going to cos. They did not care about veterans and their families and the issue of what my bill would do to help them. All they asked about was the cost.

So, I will ask once again. Has he got the evidence to prove that this would actually prevent crime, and what is the financial cost of the bill?

He said some of the provinces would pay for it, and that is true. However, would the money then be transferred from the federal government to the provinces to pay for that?

With a burgeoning deficit, where is the money going to come from, increased taxes or cuts to services?

I have no problems with him debating the issue of crime and punishment, but someone has to pay the financial costs for this. Yes, there is a cost when people commit crime, but there is also a cost when we put them behind bars for extended periods of time.

So, how much would it cost and where is the evidence to support his conclusions that this would actually prevent crime?

These are two very basic questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has asked the question about the cost. I do not know whether members might have asked him how much his bill would cost. What is the cost in terms of dealing with child pornography?

Once again, I go back to the real question. What is the cost to society of not taking these types of action? What is the cost to society of not putting in place the deterrents to stop these types of action?

I have laid out that the original bill, as amended, was $10.7 million and that Bill C-9, as it was originally introduced, was $21.7 million.

There will be some costs, but these are costs that the people of Canada expect the government to pay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is something that does not come up very often. We all know that as members of Parliament, we quite often hear from the public, from people who are concerned that criminals sometimes have more rights than do the actual victims of crime.

There is another issue that I would like the member to comment on, if he could. I have relatives and friends who are policemen, and one thing they tell me from time to time is that they work very hard to catch criminals, and they go through the court system, and while many criminals sometimes get off on technicalities, the ones that are convicted quite often get out on early parole or other loopholes in the justice system. They tell me that it very distinctly creates low morale for the police and the RCMP.

I wonder if the member could comment on how this bill, if passed, could maybe help in that case as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I also hear those concerns from people in my community.

Police officers work hard to find and arrest dangerous offenders in our communities, and to their shock and dismay they see these same offenders back on the street sometimes days and weeks later. They shake their heads and ask themselves why they are even doing this.

The discretion that allows these individuals to be back on the street so quickly is definitely a case for concern. It is also demoralizing for many police officers, especially when they consider the amount of paper work and other steps that need to be taken to get these people before a judge in the first place.

I completely concur with my colleague's concerns. I am confident that the reforms we are making here will make a tremendous difference because we will be taking these people off the streets.

In my previous work as an attorney, I would often hear individuals say that house arrest was a joke. Offenders could be on the street, do whatever they want, and if anybody stopped them they simply had to say they were on their way to a job interview or to a doctor's appointment. They essentially had all the freedoms that they would otherwise have if they were not behind bars.

That is the concern that Canadians are expressing to us. They feel that if somebody commits a crime they have to do the time. Canadians feel that the slap on the wrist that criminals have been getting up until this point is simply not acceptable.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. The hon. Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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, I thank my colleague for his enlightening speech and the thought he put into the role of conditional sentencing in our justice system and its limitations with respect to the types of convicts and persons who have come into the criminal justice ought to have it apply to them.

I know he is a lawyer, as am I, and relying on his legal experience, could he provide some comment, anecdotal or otherwise, as to situations where perhaps this process has not worked out properly and, more specifically, if he could comment, based on his experience as a lawyer, as to how this bill fits into the government's overall law and order strategy.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not practise a lot of criminal law. I have very little experience in that area but from my days in law school, from having several colleagues who practise in this area and from having a number of friends who are with the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police over the years working in communities, I share the concerns expressed earlier that we need to get tough on perpetrators of serious crimes, such as personal injury and degrees of theft which ruin, in many cases, people's lives. It is important that citizens and constituents of our respective ridings have assurances that people will not be out on house arrest for crimes that have significantly impacted a person, often a family, a neighbourhood or a community.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague repeatedly stands in the House in a very humble way and asserts that he represents the constituents of Kenora, and it is obvious that he is there for them.

If he cannot really comment on it as a criminal lawyer, could he comment on what he is hearing in his community as he is out there often? Is this the kind of legislation that they want to see. What other kind of feedback is he getting on the justice agenda that this government has?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for recognizing the important contributions I make in this House.

Yes, the folks in the great Kenora riding take this issue, as they do all justice issues, very seriously. There is always a balance that we need to be aware of in terms of what we are trying to achieve.

However, as the discussion alluded to earlier, which I found quite interesting, what are the challenges with respect to the costs? The costs are of the crimes themselves. When we start talking about drug trafficking and human trafficking, the impact on families, on the health care system, rehabilitation treatment, and in those orders, it becomes very clear that there is a tremendous cost to the individual, to the family, to the neighbourhood, to the community, to the riding and to the region.

This bill, like many of our justice bills, would replace the cost of crime with doing time, time in jail for perpetrators of serious crimes. That is something I think most people, not just in the great Kenora riding, but Canadians throughout the country share as a concern.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to reiterate some of the points my friend, the previous speaker, outlined in regard to conditional sentencing.

It is important to note that conditional sentences are not available for all offences and there are several criteria for their use. For example, conditional sentences are not available for offences with a mandatory prison sentence. They are also not available if a sentence would be more than two years of imprisonment.

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

In addition to the existing criteria limiting the availability of conditional sentences, this bill would also make all offences that are punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life ineligible for a conditional sentence. It would make all offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years if they result in bodily harm; involve the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs, or involve the use of weapons, ineligible for a conditional sentence.

It also would make specific serious property and violent offences punishable by 10 years and prosecuted by indictment ineligible for a conditional sentence. For example, it would specifically exclude criminal harassment, trafficking in persons, theft over $5,000 and the proposed offence of auto theft, as well as some others. Due to the criteria not previously mentioned, the reference to serious personal injury would be eliminated.

One of the interesting anecdotes that we might want to discuss here today, especially the appropriateness of it, is what this bill would eliminate. We know there has been mention of persons convicted of the sale of large amounts of drugs and who became eligible for parole after a very short period of time, in other words, anywhere between one-sixth and one-third of their sentence. I think most Canadians find that type of sentence arrangement no longer acceptable to our society.

We have people selling drugs in front of schools and in places where young people hang out, and they are making our neighbourhoods very unsafe. Parents are worried about their children when they should not be worried. There was a time when we would send our children to school and we would not worry that they were being preyed upon by drug dealers who would hook our kids on things like crack, cocaine and ecstasy.

If these drug dealers get caught and go to prison, we assume they will be there for a long time because they have taken the most precious thing we have, our children, and have misused and abused them, perhaps not physically right at the time but they have, because we know these drugs ruin lives and ruin relationships between parents and children.

We send these people to jail not just as a punishment. We send them to jail to think about what they have done and to, hopefully, learn a better trade and increase their literacy. We want to give them an opportunity to fully realize the severity of their crimes but serving one-sixth of a four or five year sentence certainly does not avail them to try to improve their lives, to bring home to them the seriousness of the crime they committed and to show them how important it is for us all to be more responsible in our communities.

Many people think we should be more severe but I think we need a balanced approach, which is what this government is all about, balancing the needs of our communities and the needs of our citizens against the needs of the individual, and to see where those two needs can come together and bring about an appropriate resolution.

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

What we find sometimes with well thought out legislation that is put before this House, there is an immediate need on some people's part to throw out amendments. However, these amendments are not always well thought out and the results of the amendments actually make the situation worse than it was before. Clarity is needed and I believe Bill C-42 delivers just that kind of clarity.

As a member of the public safety and national security committee and also the justice and human rights committee, we, at various times, when we are looking at issues surrounding crime and punishment and its effects on society, all too often see people, small special interest groups, who lose sight of the fact that illicit drugs are pervasive throughout our whole society and that they are changing us in a way that we do not want to be changed and do not need to be changed, in a way that is negative to the very core of some of our social beliefs and our work ethic, what we believe to be right and wrong.

Before we go about changing things, we need to look at the end result. We need to look at what would occur as a result of these amendments, what would occur if we began to retract and be a more permissive society, accepting things that, quite frankly, could injure the very base of our society, which happens to be the family.

It brings us, of course, full circle to the need to protect those among us who need protection, such as our children and our youth, the most vulnerable among us. We need to send a message to those who would endanger the safety and well-being of our children and those who would lead our children and other persons in our society who feel weak and succumb to the need to take drugs and other substances, that there is a cost to that and the cost will be their personal freedom.

When these individuals are convicted and sent to our prison system, we need to ensure they are there long enough to realize the error of their ways and to avail themselves of the programs that are available for them, whether they themselves are addicted, whether they need upgrades to their education or whether they need to learn a trade.

Canada's largest federal penitentiary is located in my community, which I have visited quite often. Despite some of the negativity we hear, there are opportunities for people to have a better life.

With the bill we have before us, we are concentrating on the fact that we do not want people to have early parole when they have committed serious, grievous offences. At the same time, however, we want to ensure that those people do get the help they need. I can assure the House that places like Warkworth Institution do give inmates the ability to get a secondary school diploma and to carry on further than that if they wish.

There is a program at that institution to refurbish Canada's large military trucks. People at the institution can get their sandblaster's certificate. I was speaking to some of the instructors and the number of recidivists over the last 10 or 15 years can be counted on one hand. Many of inmates have jobs before they even leave prison because the instructors have connections. The people who are availing themselves of that opportunity do not have a need to carry on their anti-social behaviour and life of crime.

In addition, there is a program for first nations. First nations people in Warkworth Institution are able to avail themselves of the healing circles to help get them back on track and help address their specific social needs. At the same time, they can learn traditional ways of earning a livelihood which bring them closer to their ancestry. They can rekindle a connection with their country, with their land, with their people, with all of us.

We need to look at this bill in a holistic way. We need to look at it not as crime and punishment but as an opportunity. When people go astray, we need to give them an opportunity to learn a better way of living, to be more responsible and to be more respectful of their fellow people when they get out of jail.

It is high time this country looked at our Criminal Code and brought it into the new millennium. We need to make it more responsive not only to the society it is designed to serve, but to the people who commit crimes. We need to offer them an opportunity to get better, because they do have an illness. It is anti-social behaviour and it needs a system that addresses it.

This is an appropriate time to talk about what this government is doing with regard to those who find themselves in jail and in the penal system. We recognize that many of them are addicted to drugs or alcohol. Some suffer from various degrees of mental illness. Our government and the public safety committee are looking at not only Canada's penal system and prisons, but the systems in other countries that share a similar social background to see how we can better treat the people in our jails so that they do not have a need to go back to a life of crime.

We have to look at the whole system in a holistic way. We need to make sure that we do not just concentrate on the punishment aspect, because this does address that. There is no talking around it. It does address that part of it. At the same time it recognizes that our penal system provides an opportunity for those people who we say must spend longer in jail to find a way to improve their personal life, improve their education, reflect upon what they have done and look at how they can become a better person. This government wants to afford them an opportunity to have a better life.

While Bill C-42 looks as though it is strictly the punishment aspect, because of the various other backup systems in our whole judicial system--and some people would call it the crime and punishment system, but I refer to it as our judicial system--it offers people an opportunity to get better, to be better and to become better citizens.

First we must address the reason they find themselves in that predicament. We cannot give them a slap on the wrist and tell them what they did was not that bad and that we will open the door for them. We need to let them know that they committed a serious crime and that they will spend significant time reflecting on it. At the same time we need to let them know that we will provide them with an opportunity to make a better life so they will not end up back in prison.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the silence of the Conservative member, the Department of Justice has confirmed that the passage of Bill C-42 would result in an increase in the prison population by over 5,000 inmates. There is no room in the provincial institutions now. Therefore, expansion and/or the construction of new facilities would be required, at a cost of $2.5 billion to $3 billion.

I saw a recent report in the press about recidivism rates. People who commit crimes, not serious ones, not drug crimes, et cetera, but dangerous driving or fraud over $1,000, are actually less likely to reoffend under conditional sentencing than if they were in that crime school called prison. I wonder if the member is aware of that.

Is he aware of any other information that talks to the recidivism rate of first time offenders of not the most serious crimes but the examples I gave him?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this place watch the news. Horrific accidents are caused by people who commit the offence of dangerous driving.

In answer to my colleague's question, quite a few years ago a Liberal government brought in the one-sixth provision to reduce prison costs.

The hon. member mentioned that sending people to jail is going to be a terrible cost. Maybe we should not send anyone to jail if we are worried about the cost. Society is telling us something. There is a cost to crime. A previous speaker talked about that cost. There is a cost to the lives of families, the relationship between parents and children who are hooked on drugs, the relationship between a husband and wife when one or the other gets hooked on drugs. It can happen so insidiously. Kids wonder what the harm is when they buy a marijuana cigarette in front of the school. They fail to realize that it might be laced with ecstasy. Some drug dealer may get some other kids in the class to sell a little piece of crack cocaine. There is the real cost. The real cost is the ruination of lives.

The people who want to commit these crimes need to be put in a place where they can think about what they have done and have a chance at rehabilitation.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect, as we all do in the House, for those who serve our communities on the front lines as police officers. My colleague did a fabulous job in his former career making sure that the public in his area was protected. That is what he is doing here today in talking about this legislation that would protect people not just in his riding, but across this country.

My colleague is a member of the justice committee and the public safety committee. I would like to know what he is hearing in his own riding about this particular bill regarding conditional sentencing.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, referring to what I was speaking about just a few minutes ago, Canada's largest federal penitentiary is in my riding. The folks there are very accepting of the fact that we need these kinds of institutions.

My hon. friend from Mississauga South conveniently left out some things, but the Minister of Public Safety has assured the House that we have the capacity. Based on this bill and others, we currently have the capacity in our prison system to handle that. We are improving on that. We are improving on our ability to treat people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. We are bound and determined to improve the treatment of mental health in our prisons or look at alternate methods of doing it.

The average person who lives in Northumberland—Quinte West believes, as does the average Canadian, that one-sixth of a sentence for a serious infraction of selling drugs not just to society but to our children is deserving of more than a few weeks or months in jail. That is the bottom line.

This piece of legislation is the kind of legislation the people of Canada are hungry for. We are going to provide it to them.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

As my colleague from Burlington mentioned, before being elected to this place, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West was a long-time police officer who worked hard on the front lines. From a law enforcement perspective, why is this bill so important?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are trained as police officers to go out, get the evidence, put together a good case and give it to the crown attorney, and whatever happens after that, we accept. We have done our part. We have total respect for our judicial system.

However, it does whittle away at police officers when time after time people commit serious crimes, such as the ones I mentioned before, trafficking in narcotics, and there seems to be a revolving door. After months and in some cases years of investigation in order to prove the offence, the courts have a trial, the person is found guilty and after sometimes millions of precious taxpayers' dollars have been spent, thousands of hours of investigation have taken place and in many cases the lives of officers have been put at risk for undercover investigations, they find out that the criminal, after availing himself or herself of all the benefits of our judicial system, is out on the street in a few months. That makes it very difficult at times. We still do the job but it does make it difficult.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated that the minister has commented on the cost of the expansion and that there is enough space. The Department of Justice, which is responsible for these matters, said in today's media that, in fact, the jails cannot absorb another 5,000 inmates. There is not enough room. It will take an expansion costing $2.5 billion to $3 billion to accommodate the increase in the prison population. Inmates will be doubling up in cells.

The member knows that, so why is he misleading the House by saying something different?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is the member for Mississauga South has never been accused of understating things. As a matter of fact, he is embellishing quite well.

He says there are going to be 5,000 more people sent to jail. I could make a good argument that it may be just the very opposite because people will realize there is going to be a tremendous cost to it. What is the alternative?

It is fine for him to talk about those things, but under his party's government, people were being released after serving one-sixth of their sentence based on no other reason than to save dollars.

It is time that we had some common sense in our judicial system and some balance. That is what this bill does. It brings balance and common sense back to our judicial system. People respect that.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Northumberland—Quinte West for his speech and his work as a police officer on the front line for many, many years.

Is the debate based on politics; that is, what is best to be elected or what is best for society? No party has the wherewithal to say that it is the party with this issue and no other party can debate or talk about this issue. It is simply not true. Every single member of Parliament has had people come to them over their period of time here to talk about a crime that has been committed against them, what they have read in the paper, or what they have seen on the news. In many cases, unless people have been in a courtroom and understand the procedure from the time the crime has been committed to the sentencing aspect of it, many of us just simply get our information from what we hear. If we have been victims of crime, we understand the process a little better than others.

The previous speaker spoke about people doing time in prison and what happens when they are there? That is the key. It is one thing to say to someone that they are going to jail for six months, six years, 25 years, but what happens to that individual behind bars? What happens to them in the prison system? Are the human resources there to actually try to change this person's opinion? Are they there to say, “All right, buddy, what you've done was seriously wrong. That type of behaviour was against society's rules. Now we are going to ask you to work with us and we are going to try to correct that behaviour”.

The reality is that what we get from the Conservatives is the back end of what we call the justice issues. We do not know if they are acting on a revenge premise or the justice issue. I will give them the benefit of the doubt, because I know a lot of them personally, and I think that they are actually trying to do what they believe is best for their constituents and Canadian society.

When we debate these types of issues, we have to have an honest and thoughtful debate, one that is not pointing fingers at anybody. No riding is exempt from crime. No person in this House is an expert on what to do in this regard. That is why it is important for the House of Commons to have this type of debate and eventually committees can bring in experts.

When we have this type of debate, we would think that the government, with all the research capability at its fingerprints, when it brings legislation forward in terms of increased sentences or whatever it brings, that it would be able to bring up the financial costs as well, not just the cost of what happens when the crime is committed but the actual costs of longer duration of prison time for these perpetrators.

The Conservatives should be able to come up with those answers fairly quickly. They have all the research capability at their fingertips, but we never get that from them until much later. If they are looking for more support, if they are looking for more positive debate on this particular issue, I ask them to bring those financial figures forward. Then we can find out exactly who will pay for this. It is one thing to say to someone, “Buddy, you did something wrong. We are going to tack on an extra 10 years to your sentence”, but there is a financial cost to that, a financial cost to the taxpayers of Canada.

I remember a Conservative Party once in this place called the Reform Party, and its members always said that nothing should be presented to the House until a dollar figure was attached to it, and it did not matter what it was. This particular Conservative Party, if there are any fiscal conservatives left over there, seems to have forgotten that aspect of it. Plus, we are asking the government, where is the evidence that this will actually deter crime? Where is the evidence? That is all we are asking for.

We are not saying what the Conservatives are doing is wrong or right. All we are asking is, where is the evidence that these particular pieces of legislation will indeed do exactly what they say it will do? If they brought that and the cost figures forward, they would probably get a lot more support in the initial stages of this discussion.

I will give the Conservatives credit for bringing forward issues that a lot of people do not like to talk about. However, if we cannot debate these issues in the House of Commons, then where can we debate them?

I agree. There are some people in this country, if I had them in front of me, I do not know what I would do with them after seeing some of the crimes they have committed. But I have asked for over twelve and a half years, through many justice ministers, including two with the Conservative Party, to bring forward a comprehensive child Internet pornography bill, and I am still waiting.

I have had the legislation. A previous member here had the legislation. The former attorney general of Saskatchewan, Mr. Chris Axworthy, brought it forward many times. We are still waiting. From Liberals and Conservatives, we are waiting to stop child pornography in this country. Whether or not we can completely stop it, I do not know, but the reality is that we have to do a lot better to protect our children in this regard.

It does not just necessarily mean putting those perpetrators behind bars. It is trying to get at the root of the problem first.

A priest once told me that when dealing with crime or anything of this nature, crime is like dandelions. We can cut off the tops of the dandelions but if we do not get at the root of the problem, they will just grow back again, and this is what we in the NDP have emphasized for many years. We have to get at the root of the crime to really prevent it from happening again. That is where the real investment and real expenditures should be made.

If we can create for the families and children of communities right across this country, from coast to coast to coast, a system of ensuring that they all have proper nutrition, proper education, proper housing, proper health care, et cetera, many of them would not fall into the lap of crime, but unfortunately, when they do not see a way out, many of them resort to substance abuse and to criminal activity in order to get through their lives on a day to day basis. In fact, many of them fall into gangs.

This is what happens when we do not invest in families and children right from the very beginning. We can lock them all up but we are never going to prevent it from happening. There is no question that deterrents will have an effect on some people, but if we are truly serious about justice issues in this country, we have to get at the root of the problem to begin with.

Crime has been with us since time immemorial. We have always had some form of thievery in this country, ever since man has been around. Since Adam and Eve we have had some form of crime in this world, and not one person has been able to completely stamp it out. We know that when we look at the Scandinavian countries, when we look at the European countries and what they are doing in prevention, and we see what they are doing when criminals are in jail, we see that many times they will not repeat what they have done before, and also many of them do not commit the crime in the first place.

It begs the question: What do we do with someone who murders three children? What do we do with someone who has had 12 impaired driving charges, and on the 13th time, went and killed someone?

In my own riding, when I first became an MP, I will never forget it. We gave a beautiful 18-year-old girl a grade 12 graduation certificate. Three months later, we sent her family a condolence card on the death of their daughter because of a drunk driver in Nova Scotia who had nine impaired driving charges. On the 10th one he got it right. He finally killed someone. He went to jail for the maximum sentence at that time of eight years.

I can assure members that I and my entire community were very upset with the fact that it was only eight years. I would love to have seen a more personal, longer sentence. But we have to ask ourselves how he got a driver's licence after every single other offence. The fact is that we did not get at the root of that problem. We just slapped him on the wrist. We put him in jail the first time, fined him, and then just let him carry on his way.

Society, in fact politicians at all levels, failed the system because we forgot to go after this guy and teach him from the beginning that drinking and driving was an unacceptable aspect of our society and that thou shalt not do it again, but we just ignored it and passed it on.

Again, if we are going to prevent crime from happening, we have to get at the roots of it. It is critical that we as parliamentarians look at the roots of all of this in society from our aboriginal people to new immigrants, to gangs, to the whole bit. For the Conservative Party to say that it has all the answers is simply not true.

Here is something else that is really quite offensive in many ways. RCMP officers, in many ways, are the front line warriors when it comes to crime in this country. They are the ones who are up all night. They are the ones who go after the bad guys in our communities.

What does the Conservative government do? People who understand agreements with the RCMP know that the RCMP does not have an association or a union. After six months through the RCMP pay council, it turned around and agreed to a 3.5% increase. That is not very much money for our brave men and women who wear the red serge. The government agreed to it and signed the deal that said this is what they were going to receive. What happened on December 23? In an email, just before Christmas, what did the Conservatives do? They told the RCMP that, without debate, without discussion, they were going to rollback that increase they agreed to back to 1.5%.

What is the Conservative Party saying to the RCMP? “Yes, we value your service. We're proud to have you as police officers in this country doing the job that we ask you to do. And when we negotiate in writing and agree to your pay increase, yes, we're going to honour that”. Then, without notice, bang. Gone. Rolled back to 1.5%. I have yet to hear one Conservative stand in this House and apologize for that action. It begs the question: Why did they roll back that salary without debate in the House of Commons, without any previous warning, and just prior to Christmas? I have spoken with many RCMP officers and their families across this country who are very upset and very angry over that.

I will say this to the federal government, and these Conservatives, if they care to listen. They do not have all the answers to crime and punishment in this country. However, by working co-operatively in this House of Commons, we can work together to ensure that those perpetrators of serious crimes do pay the time that they deserve. However, at the same time, for all of those people who are suffering from mental health issues, from social issues, from all other issues, who find no other way in life but to resort to crime, we as a society should be there to invest in those early treatment programs to ensure that they do not fall into crime in the first place.

If we have that ability, as a Parliament, to do that, then I think we can not only reduce crime drastically in this country but we as a society will be able to move forward, as other countries have as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member very carefully. He talked about getting to the root of crime, and I do not disagree that that is part of the equation, but I did not hear him talk about victims. And of course, on this side of the House, we are very concerned about victims. We certainly want to provide support to those victims.

My specific question for the member is this. What do we say to victims who have had their house broken into, their personal possessions rifled through, their property stolen, and then they find out that the perpetrator served the sentence inside his or her own house, under an order of house arrest?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, if the individual was listening to my speech earlier, he would know that I did talk about victims. I talked about one lady in my riding who lost her daughter to a drunk driver.

Having lived in Yukon and witnessed a tremendous amount of crime there, and having also lived in British Columbia and Nova Scotia and seen many friends who were victims of crime, every single one of those people are very angry and very upset.

One of the things that I have always sought is victim impact statements. Every single victim should have their day in court to tell the judge and the jury exactly what the offender has done that created turmoil in their lives. I believe that if every victim had the opportunity to appear before a judge and/or jury to make an victim impact statement, it would assist the legal system tremendously.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. I must interrupt at this time. The member will have eight minutes remaining in questions and comments when the House returns to this matter.

Statements by members. The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before question period interrupted the debate, the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore had the floor for questions and comments following his speech. There are eight minutes remaining for questions and comments on the hon. member's speech. I therefore call for questions and comments the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore about a private member's bill that is being presented.

We know that the Conservatives like to pretend that they are very tough on crime, yet when it comes to the long gun registry, they had a backbencher introduce legislation.

I would like the thoughts of the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore on why the government did not present this bill.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is the $64,000 question.

Here we are debating a bill regarding sentencing of certain types of criminal acts in the country, and there tends to be the perception that only the Conservatives can talk about crime and are tough on crime. Yet when it comes to an issue that affects many rural farmers and hunters and many Canadians across this country, it took a backbencher to introduce Bill C-68, the old gun legislation.

First the Conservatives had the Senate try to do it, and they failed. Then they had the member for Yorkton—Melville introduce it, and it was convoluted and failed. Then they got a new member of Parliament to introduce it.

If the government were truly serious about the gun legislation and the gun registry in this country, it would have introduced that as a government bill.

I could not help but notice in question period today that the backbencher in question asked the Minister of Public Safety a question about it. That is the first time I have ever seen that.

If the government were truly serious about elimination of the gun registry, it would have introduced it as a government bill.

Only the Conservatives can truly determine why they did not, but I think I know why. It is to give the impression within their urban ridings and with their urban voters that this is an issue. They know that a backbench bill rarely gets through.

With delays in time and everything and a possible election in the spring, this bill may never see the light of day, which is unfortunate, because I think it is worthy of the debate, and it is something the government should have done when it became government in 2006.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for an excellent presentation.

Before question period he was asked a question by one of the government members about why the member had not talked about victims' rights. If the member had been listening, and obviously he had not been, to the member's speech he would have known that the member spent a very large portion of his speech talking about that very point, victims' rights.

It seems as though it is almost an organized effort on the part of the government to simply make the charge that somehow people in the opposition are not interested in victims' rights when in fact we spend half or three-quarters of our speeches talking about that very point.

I would like the member to elaborate on why they keep denying that we are taking the side of the victims when we continue to do so. Why do they not recognize that?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the best way to get attention is to politicize a very serious topic.

When it comes to issues of crime and the victims of crime, no member of Parliament has carte blanche. No member of Parliament can stand up here and say “I have all the answers” or “My party has all the answers”.

As I said earlier, there is not one member of Parliament, or a senator for that matter, who does not know someone who has been a victim of crime.

We have, over and over, tried to emphasize that if the government is going to institute longer penalties for crime, then it must tell people where the evidence is, the scientific evidence or the research, that shows that will be a preventer of crime.

Where are the funding elements to help the provinces and territories build the additional prisons for the longer times, et cetera?

We have asked those two questions over and over again, and we have not gotten an answer. I will give the Conservatives credit in this regard: they brought up a subject that is worthy of debate. I would remind them that just because they brought up a topic for debate does not mean that other members of Parliament from other parties do not have the constitutional and democratic right to ask serious questions when it comes to these issues.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want us to believe that they are the only ones who are concerned about crime, but we in the NDP are concerned about the victims. We are concerned about the cost to society. We are also concerned about the cost this is going to bring to taxpayers.

I would like the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to give me his thoughts on what this is going to cost.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

To be honest, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the fiscal cost will be to people in this country. I do know that if the federal government can, it will download these fiscal responsibilities to the provinces and territories. It could end up with a bit of friction with the provinces.

Have the justice minister and the public safety minister worked with the provincial and territorial justice and public safety ministers? Has there been true consultation with the provinces and territories when it comes to these very important issues? What agreement has taken place on cost sharing and everything else?

Since 1995 we have been asking Liberal and Conservative governments to bring in a comprehensive child Internet pornography bill. We are still asking for that bill because child Internet pornography is one of the worst things perpetrated on our children.

Why is the government so reluctant to bring in a child Internet pornography bill? I already have one, and the government could just run with it. I have asked the justice minister to do the same.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member if he intends to support the continuation of the long gun registry or not support it. Is he going to vote yes or no on the bill put forward by the member for Portage—Lisgar? If he fudges it, we will assume that he is voting against a private member's bill.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, long before the Minister of State for Democratic Reform arrived in the House, I have been on the record over and over again as being opposed to Bill C-68. He can check with the gentleman right behind him, the member from Yorkton. In my 12 years in this place all I have ever asked is that the government bring in a bill that is very clear and ends the long gun registry. I would personally stand up and support that. I have been very clear on the record.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-42.

At the outset, I want to thank the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for a fantastic speech. He does that all of the time; almost every speech I have heard him make in the House has been excellent. He certainly caught the minister unaware. The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore signed on to the even earlier gun bill. He was one of the MPs who endorsed the bill by signature. The member for Sackville—Eastern Shore has certainly been on the record for a long time on this issue. The Minister of State for Democratic Reform should rest easy and sleep well knowing where the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore stands on this issue.

BillC-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code to end conditional sentences for property and other serious crimes, was given first reading in the House of Commons on June 15, 2009. The bill amends section 742.1 of the Criminal Code, which deals with conditional sentencing, to eliminate the reference to serious personal injury offences. It also restricts 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.

Conditional sentencing was introduced in September 1996. It allows for sentences of imprisonment to be served in the community rather than in a correctional facility. It is a midway point between incarceration and sanctions such as probation or fines. The conditional sentence was not introduced in isolation but as part of a renewal of the sentencing provisions in the Criminal Code. These provisions included the fundamental purpose and principle of sentencing. The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. The renewed sentencing provision set out further sentencing principles, including a list of aggravating and mitigating circumstances that should guide sentences imposed.

The primary goal of conditional sentencing is to reduce the reliance upon incarceration by providing the courts with alternative sentencing mechanisms. In addition, the conditional sentence provides an opportunity to further incorporate restorative justice concepts into the sentencing process by encouraging those who have caused harm to acknowledge this fact and to make reparation. At the time of their introduction, conditional sentences were generally seen as an appropriate mechanism to divert minor offences and offenders away from the prison system. Overuse of incarceration was recognized by many as problematic, while restorative justice concepts were seen as beneficial.

The provisions governing conditional sentences are set out in sections 742 to 742.7 of the Criminal Code. Several criteria must be met before the sentencing judge may impose a conditional sentence. There are at least seven provisions, and rather than read all seven of them, I will simply deal with two of the provisions.

One is that the sentencing judge must have determined that the offence should be subject to a term of imprisonment of less than two years, where we are dealing with offences where the normal term of imprisonment would be two years or less. The other is that the sentencing judge must be satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community. That is fairly self-explanatory. If there is a determination that the offender might cause problems in the community and endanger the safety, the offender would not be eligible for this type of sentence. The sentencing judge must be satisfied that the conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, which are set out in sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Insofar as the final criteria is concerned, among the objectives of sentencing are the following: the denunciation of unlawful conduct; the deterrence of the offender and others from committing offences; separation of the offender from the community when necessary; the rehabilitation of the offender; the provision of reparation to victims in the community; and the promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender.

In addition to meeting the criteria, conditional sentences involve a number of compulsory conditions set out in section 742.3 of the Criminal Code. These conditions compel the offender to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, appear before the court when required to do so, report to a supervisor as required, remain within the jurisdiction of the court unless written permission to go outside of the jurisdiction is obtained from the court or the supervisor, and notify the court or the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court or the supervisor of any change of employment or occupation.

There have been examples where, in fact, people have chosen to go to jail rather than take this option because they felt that jail was less onerous on them than this route.

Depending on the circumstances, the offender must abstain from the consumption of alcohol or drugs, abstain from owning, possessing or carrying a weapon, perform up to 240 hours of community service, attend a treatment program approved by the province, or any other reasonable condition that the court considers desirable for securing the good conduct of the offender and for preventing the offender repeating the same offence or committing another offence.

The court must ensure that the offender is given a copy of the order and an explanation as to the procedure for changing the original conditions and the consequences of breaching any of those conditions that were agreed to.

Members can see that this is not a simple process. It is very involved. We know that conditional sentencing was enacted both to reduce reliance on incarceration as a sanction and to increase the principles of restorative justice in sentencing. All of this was happening in 1996, at a time when there was a lot of previous experience with minimum sentencing in the United States. I will get to that in a few minutes.

In the 1980s, the United States built lots of private prisons, which I am sure made a lot of private entrepreneurs rich, but at the end of the day, the crime rate did not go down, it went up. I have statistics on that which, as I said, I will get to in a couple of minutes.

Statistics Canada reports that conditional sentences still represent a small proportion of all sentences. In addition, the tendency in recent years has been to use conditional sentences less frequently. In 2003-04 conditional sentences accounted for only 5.3% of all admissions to adult correctional services. By 2007-08 the figure had actually declined to 4.7%. In 2007-08, of the 107,790 offenders being supervised in the community, the vast majority of them, 75%, were on probation, and only 16% were on conditional sentences, with another 5% on parole or statutory release.

Canada's incarceration rate in 2007-08 rose by 2% from the previous year, which was the third consecutive annual increase. By the way, the reason was that there were a growing number of adults being held in remand in provincial and territorial jails while awaiting trial or sentencing.

We know that on any given day in 2007-08 an average of 36,330 adults and 2,018 youths age 12 to 17 were in custody in Canada, for a total of about 38,348 inmates, which, by the way, is a rate of 117 people in custody for every 100,000 in population.

Let us look at some other countries. Canada is higher than western European countries and lower than the United States. For example, in 2007 Sweden had a rate of 74 people in custody per 100,000. The Canadian rate was 117 people per 100,000.

Guess what the rate is in the United States? The members of the government are experts on crime; they are tough on crime but not so smart on crime. They should know this figure. However, if they know the figure, they are not going to want to tell us what the figure is because it is an astronomical figure. It is 762 per 100,000.

So, here we have the United States right at the top, at 762 people per 100,000. In Canada, it drops way down, or seven times lower, to 117. Then in Sweden, it drops even lower, to 74. So, I think the government should be looking at what works.

Maybe the Conservatives should be looking to Sweden. They should focus their eyes over to Sweden and see what Sweden is doing there to see why its rate is 74 per 100,000. But, no, they do not that. They concentrate on the United States, which has seven times the number of people per 100,000. So, they are adopting a model that does not work.

I would never suggest that we adopt it because it comes from the United States or that we do not adopt it because it comes from the United States. We should be looking at what works.

I have said time and time again in this House that in the Manitoba environment, and the Minister of democratic reform knows this very well, we had a severe problem with, and we still have a severe problem with, auto theft. Although, one day a few months ago, we actually had zero auto thefts in Manitoba. Why did that happen? The government came to terms with the issue. It mandated immobilizers in cars. It also set up a task force within the police force to target the most serious 50 offenders, monitor them, chase them, get them off the streets and keep them off the streets, and that has shown a huge turnaround. That is what worked. And so, other jurisdictions are looking at that.

I think we should be looking at different jurisdictions. I am sure there are programs in the United States that do work. If anyone can find me one that works, in the United States, then I would applaud the government if it would look at the United States example and follow that example. However, it should not just blindly go in and say, “We are going to go on this program of mandatory minimums because it shows good in our polling results. We did some polling the other day and it showed that when we talk about mandatory minimums, our numbers went up 5%. So, we are going to do that”. And then we look at what the results were in the United States and we see it has seven times the number of people in jails. There is obviously a disconnect here.

I would admonish the government and suggest to the government that it look to Sweden, that it look to other countries that have lower rates and show success in certain areas, that it should adopt a program that is comprehensive but borrows the best, that it look at best practices in other jurisdictions and follows that, rather than just simply blindly following the opinion polls.

The imposition of conditional sentences should not only reduce the rate of incarceration, it should also reduce expenditures on the correctional system.

I always thought Conservatives were interested in sound financial management--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So they say.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

The member for Winnipeg Centre says, “So they say”.

--and we found this over and over again. I remember the Liberals driving up the deficit year after year, in the seventies. Then the Mulroney government came in and said it was going to be fiscally conservative and it was going to take care of this deficit. In fact, it just kept driving it up and up.

Why the Conservatives have a good fiscal image with the public is just beyond me because every government that I ever look at, the Grant Devine government in Saskatchewan, any of these Conservative governments, preach a great line in opposition about how they are going to balance the books, how they are going to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, how they are going to always give a hand up rather than a handout and all this right wing ideology. Then they get into power and do everything but what they said they were going to do in opposition and that whole fiscal conservatism just goes right out the window and they run huge deficits.

We do not want to get into what the Conservatives are doing right now because, in actual fact, they had to do something to deal with the issue. However, Preston Manning and his group would just be in shock right now. If we were able to look back 10 years ago and predict in the future that a Conservative government would own General Motors, it would be laughable. The Conservatives would be rolling in the aisles at their conventions over this issue.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

A bunch of pinkos.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes, Madam Speaker, there would certainly be a revolution in the ranks. They would be trying to root out those pinkos for sure who would even suggest that something like that could ever happen in a Conservative government, and yet it has all come to pass.

There is always room for some reform, some change of thought. We are in a minority government and there is a possibility that the government can be trained. The member from Thunder Bay mentioned that governments need training, especially minority governments, so maybe we could do some work on this one and try to get it to redirect some of its crime initiatives into a more reasonable and more workable form. The Conservatives are certainly unable to do it on their own.

The cost of the system is simply a function of having huge amounts of people incarcerated. The annual cost for persons in provincial or territorial custody, including remand and other temporary detention, in 2005 was $52,000. I have read other figures up as high as $70,000.

The average annual cost of supervising an offender in the community, including conditional sentences, probation, bail supervision, fine options and conditional release in 2006-07 was only $2,398. Juxtapose that figure against $52,000 to $70,000 for incarcerating these people in what are nothing more than crime schools. They are just trained to be better criminals.

Why would we try to eliminate a system that actually works, that saves on cost, that gets results?

I want to deal with recidivism rates and not knowing how much time I have left I will have to deal with that rather quickly.

A 2004 study found 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 would otherwise be in custody.

Another Statistics Canada study found that adult offenders who spent their sentence under supervision in the community were far less likely to become reinvolved with correctional authorities within 12 months. Is that not what we want to happen to the released and those who were in a correctional institution? This is a win-win situation.

The study found that in four provinces, 11% of people who were under community supervision became reinvolved with correctional authorities within 12 months of their release in 2003-04. Among those in custody, only 30% were reinvolved. In other words, people who were put in jail were twice as much, 30%, double the proportion of those who were under community service, likely to reoffend. If that is not proof that the system is cost effective and actually gets results with only half the people reoffending, I would say is an argument for keeping it.

In a study that concentrated on victims of crime and their attitude toward conditional sentencing, the benefits of conditional sentencing were said to be:

--that most rehabilitation programs can be more effectively implemented when the offender is in the community rather than custody...that prison is no more effective a general or specific deterrent than the more severe intermediate punishments...keeping an offender in custody is significantly more expensive than supervising him or her in the community...the public has become more supportive of community-based sentencing, except when applied to serious crimes of violence...widespread interest in restorative justice...has also revitalized interest in community-based sanctions. Restorative justice promotes the use of victim compensation, and service to the community...The virtues of community sanctions have thus become increasingly apparent in recent years. When offenders are punished in the community, the state saves valuable correctional resources, the offender is able to continue (or seek) employment, and maintain ties with his or her family.

It is very important to not lose contact with family and with any employment possibilities. We have to get people back to a better place than they were when we found them.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments.

He began talking about the long gun registry. I would like him to tell this House right now if he is for the long gun registry or against the long gun registry. Which way will he vote? Will he support the member for Portage—Lisgar's bill to get rid of the long gun registry?

My second question is this. We are from the same city of Winnipeg. The member for Elmwood—Transcona comments on the criminal element and his lack of will to get tough on criminals is scandalous. I know the community of Elmwood--Transcona very well and people are sick and tired of criminals back on the street after spending a fraction of their time in prison. Where is the justice?

The member only won by 1,500 votes and I would like him to stand up and be very clear to the people of Elmwood--Transcona that he is not supporting the government legislation because this issue will cause him to lose his seat. The people of Elmwood--Transcona will be outraged.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the minister for democratic reform should be more concerned about saving his own seat from the resurgent Liberals than worrying about my situation.

[Stockwell Day, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

What? Resurgent Liberals? You are down 25%.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

For the government member's information, there is a little bit of a resurgence in certain pockets of Manitoba. We cannot explain it. It may be an aberration of the polling system but it is showing there, so I want to alert him to the fact that he should be casting his gaze back and looking at that.

In terms of my electoral prospects, I would tell the hon. member that he is welcome to come in and campaign for any Conservative candidate that the government wants to run against me next time because we demolished the last candidate who was an NHL hockey player with a full campaign of $70,000, and we rolled right over him. We are willing to take on anybody the government wants to send our way.

I think he is looking at old stats. He is looking at stats from a year ago. Let me inform him that things have changed a lot.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his insight into the debate.

It is going to be very important to have this matter dealt with at committee. I am sure that many of the questions that have been raised in the debate will be resolved there, things such as cost, and I know the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been engaged to look into the costs of this and other legislation dealing with the Criminal Code.

The member talked about recidivism rates in his speech. I have recently seen a case in a media report that seems to indicate that all of the studies and the literature find that people who are given conditional sentences are substantially less likely to reoffend than those who would are put in jail and have to serve that full term.

It makes an interesting question about whether or not the intent of the legislation that we bring forward should be to reduce recidivism, and conditional sentencing appears to support the action of reducing recidivism.

I wonder if the member has any some comments on that.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I often wondered why I liked the hon. member. He is very wise. He does not always follow the Liberal line on the Canada-Colombia trade deal and other issues. He takes a bit of an independent stance and I kind of like that. He is certainly correct. The stats do seem to bear out.

I had mentioned that a Statistics Canada study found that adult offenders who spent time under supervision were far less likely to become re-involved with correctional authorities within 12 months of their release than if they were in a correctional institution. The figures were that 11% who were under community supervision reoffended within a year, whereas of the people who had been in incarcerated, it was 30%.

Not only do statistics show it is twice as effective, there are also statistics to show that it is enormously more effective financially. Rather than costing between $50,000 and $70,000 per person per year, it was only a matter of a couple of thousand dollars.

Do not bother the government with the facts. The Conservatives do not want to know about the facts because they are too busy stoking up the polling machine to get the numbers up. Look at what they are doing now. They are sitting over there asking us about the gun bill because they just cannot wait.

I say to the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, there are just a few more sleeps. He can show up in the House on November 4 and he will find out how we are all going to vote. He should come here and he will find out that day.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about criminals committing blue collar crimes and white collar crimes. One thing we have not heard about are the victims. I would like to ask the hon. member what this bill is going to do to help the victims of crime.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I owned an insurance agency for 30 years and I certainly had numerous opportunities to deal with people who were victims of crime. Those people are very supportive of what the Manitoba government has done in terms of victims' rights.

Victims' rights have been improving over the years, since the days of Howard Pawley. The Gary Filmon Conservatives took over and made some improvements. Then Gary Doer's NDP took over and made some more improvements, to the point where Dave Chomiak and Gord Mackintosh constantly made improvements over the years so that victims are being recognized in the system and have a say over how things develop.

There was a time 20 years ago when if people's homes were broken into and things were stolen, the victims could not find out any information about what had happened. They could not track down what the status of the thieves were, whether they were in court, when they were in court and what the resolution was of the case.

Fortunately, things have improved over the last number of years and it has happened in an environment where the NDP government in Manitoba has made those initiatives. Even the two for one credit which the government is ballyhooing about and finally got through the Senate was started by justice minister Dave Chomiak in the NDP government of Gary Doer in Manitoba.

I wish the Conservatives would quit harping about how everybody in the opposition is soft on crime and they are tough on crime. They may be tough on crime, but they are not smart on crime and that is where we want to be at the end of the day.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will make this question very brief in order to give an opportunity for the member to answer the questions that the Minister of State for Democratic Reform asked regarding the gun registry and which the member very cleverly avoided answering.

Will he be accountable to his constituents? Will he tell them publicly now how he is going to vote on that and on conditional sentencing?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, it may be a surprise to the member, but I was a provincial member for 23 years.

My constituency is an urban seat. I do not know why he is getting so excited here. It is not a rural seat at all. It is an urban seat. If anything, the majority of people would probably support gun registration. For his information, in the 1995 provincial election, I was one of the members who at that point had said that I did not like the way gun registration was developing, and—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member has run out of time.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at the second reading stage of Bill C-42.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #118

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)