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.

An Act to Bring Fairness for the Victims of Violent Offenders

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of Bill C-479 at third reading. As I said just a few minutes ago, we believe Bill C-479, as amended, contains important improvements in victims' rights.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale for his efforts to bring this improvement to victims rights before the House and to third reading, where it now seems assured to pass.

There are many provisions in the bill which would be of clear benefit to victims. Indeed, some of these have already become a normal part of the practice in the corrections and parole system. However, we agree that it is a good idea to entrench these rights for victims by placing them in legislation.

These rights include: the right of victims or members of their family to be present at parole hearings; the right of victims to have their statements considered by the Parole Board of Canada in its decisions regarding offender release; expanding the manner in which victims' statements can be presented at parole hearings through the use of technology, among other things; and requiring that the communication of victims' information be considered by the board. In other words, the victims would have a right to see what the board has looked at, so they can understand how that decision has been made.

Also, they include making it obligatory to provide transcripts of parole hearings to victims and their families, and making it mandatory to inform victims when an offender is granted a temporary absence, or parole or is released at the end of their sentence.

These are all good things, but there is one area in which we remain disappointed. That is the unwillingness of the government to go further in a very important area. We were surprised to see the government reject an amendment from our side, which would have expanded victims' rights in a proposal that would have allowed victims to choose other means of observing parole hearings than appearing in person.

We believe victims have the right to observe parole hearings by video or teleconferencing if they so choose. Strangely, with the way things work right now, victims only have the right to observe those hearings by video or teleconference if Correctional Service of Canada has banned them from appearing in person.

It is a strange quirk in the rules. If victims have made threats or been disruptive and Correctional Service ofCanada says that they cannot attend the parole hearings, they are then allowed to attend by videoconference or teleconference. We believe this right should be extended to all victims.

There are many good reasons why any victim might not want to make use of the right to observe in person. Some victims would prefer not to be in the same room as the offender, whether out of fear or revulsion.

It would also allow those victims who would otherwise have to travel to attend a hearing. Perhaps an offender has been transferred across the country and a hearing is in British Columbia and the victims live in Ontario. If they could attend by video or teleconference, they would not incur travel costs and they would not have to take time off from work.

Hearings far from home have become a problem for many victims. Again, we believe that if we extended them the right to choose to attend by videoconference or teleconference, it would be an important improvement.

We remain concerned about one aspect of the bill, which is the provision that was just mentioned by the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale in his answer to the question from the parliamentary secretary. This is the provision that would give the Parole Board the discretion to extend the interval between parole hearings for those convicted of very serious crimes.

We have no problem with this provision when it is applied to those serving life sentences. In fact, we proposed to amend the bill to do just that. However, there is a risk that lengthening the discretionary period between reviews for those serving shorter sentences may inadvertently remove incentives for offenders to participate in rehabilitation programs.

In other words, if offenders are told that their hearings have been put off for four years, what would their incentive be, when they are in the corrections institute, to enter into those rehabilitation programs?

Again, for those serving shorter sentences, it may inadvertently increase the number of people who leave custody without supervision upon their warrant expiry. In other words, if they are told that their hearings have been put off for three years and their warrants expire in three years and six months, they would have no incentive. They would not participate and they would get out without any of that very necessary rehabilitation.

How do we avoid that happening? Obviously, we support the bill, because we believe we could avoid that if there were a well-funded Parole Board. The Parole Board would be able to avoid these unintended consequences.

However, we have a Parole Board which is now suffering from restricted funding and so there will be the tendency for the Parole Board to be forced to extend the interval between paroles simply as a question of resources. It will have other things it has to do by law and therefore if the interval allowed, and we call it discretion, is longer, then it will inevitably become longer if it does not have adequate funding. As we have seen with the Conservatives in power, quite often we have underfunding of very important public services, and the Parole Board is one of those.

Finally, we remain concerned with process, and that is the process of making extensive changes to the Criminal Code of Canada and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act through multiple bills proceeding through different paths through Parliament on different timetables. The sheer volume of the changes that have been made by different bills often considered in different committees risk legal errors and omissions as well as unintended consequences. Some bills go to the justice committee, some go to the public safety committee where I sit.

For instance, in the case of Bill C-479, the public safety committee did not have the advantage of seeing the text of the government's victims bill of rights, Bill C-32, and now it will go to the justice committee where the members of the justice committee will not have the benefit of having heard the witnesses and the testimony that we had in the public safety committee on very closely related issues. Again, we think there is a potential problem by having multiple private members' bills as well as a government bill on victims' rights all going through the House of Commons with different paths and different timetables.

This piecemeal approach also means that sometimes important issues never end up in front of the House. What readily comes to mind is the question of how we address other needs of victims other than their needs in conjunction with the legal system.

Therefore, improving victims' rights with regard to the legal system is important. As I said, for that reason we have supported bills like Bill C-42 and the bill in front of us now. However, victims have other important needs like compensation for losses they may have suffered, financial help with time off work, counselling or help with other expenses necessary to get their lives back on track. Neither Bill C-479 nor Bill C-482 have tackled this question and Bill C-32, the victims bill of rights, suggests the answer can be found in simply expanding the rights of victims to restitution.

The problem that we on this side of the House see is that unfortunately very few victims will ever be able to recover anything through the restitution process because of the obvious fact that most offenders have few resources. This was a point that I tried to raise last night in the late night debate on the victims bill of rights. When I tried to put forward the need to discuss a better alternative, which has the potential to treat all victims fairly and equally, I was nearly shouted down in the House. It may have been the late hour that caused some of the rambunctious responses on the other side of the House, but it again illustrates the problem of doing these things piecemeal through the House of Commons.

What I wanted to put forward briefly was the idea that what we really needed was federal leadership on an adequate compensation plan for victims through criminal injuries compensation funds. The Conservatives try to slough this off, saying that it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, yet one province, Newfoundland and Labrador, and all three territories, have no such program and in the other nine provinces the criminal injury compensation funds have very low caps on the amount of compensation available to individual victims. In some cases, this is as low as $5,000. If we think about it, $5,000 will not go very far in trying to cover things even like lost wages.

As I said before, no party in the House has a monopoly on a concern for victims, but we sometimes have different approaches to the problem. We have been supportive of these attempts to expand victims' rights through the legal system, but we believe there are other needs of victims that also need equal consideration. As well, we have argued all along that one of the most important things we in the House can do is adopt programs and ensure that corrections programs do not contribute to further victims in the future. A well-funded corrections system is an important part of not having further victims in the future.

Therefore, we are looking for a balance in our approach to public safety, where we can build safer communities through having punishment in place but also having adequate rehabilitation.

As my time draws to a close, let me conclude, once again, by stating the support of the New Democrats for strengthening victims' rights in the legal system. However, I would urge all members to consider the other important issue, the thing that victims also need, which is well-supported programs in order to help them put their lives back in order.

Criminal Code

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-16, especially since at our caucus meeting this morning, our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin gave an excellent presentation on this important bill.

I am the chief organizer for the Bloc Québécois. I therefore have a political role as well. Before I go on any further about Bill C-16, I will try to explain how this bill shows that the Conservatives are in political disarray.

When the Conservatives came to power in 2006 and 2008, transparency was one of the main planks in their election platform. But the Speaker of the House was forced to take the Conservatives to task on the issue of Afghan detainees. So the Conservatives can no longer use transparency to score political points.

Then there was probity. The Liberal regime had just come to an end with the sponsorship scandal, and the Conservatives were keen to show that they were whiter than snow. It was their way of positioning themselves as the alternative to the Liberals, who were facing corruption charges.

In recent weeks, with the affair involving Rahim Jaffer and the former status of women minister, we have seen that the Conservatives do what the Liberals did as soon as they get the chance, so the Conservatives should forget about probity.

They also talked about the economy. They styled themselves as the great defenders of the economy, and they said they were going to help the economy turn around. But they made some very unfortunate decisions, such as reducing the GST. That was in their election platform twice, and it cost them $14 billion. Today, we have a deficit of close to $50 billion, and the Conservatives are trying to blame the global economy. It is true that there was a crisis, but the Conservatives did themselves out of substantial revenue with their political ideology. I remember that they even wanted to put things right in the employment insurance fund. The Liberals had taken $54 billion from that fund to reinvest in the consolidated revenue fund and pay other expenses instead of putting the money toward EI.

In recent weeks, government ministers have been saying that there is no more surplus in the EI fund. There will be an annual deficit. The $50 billion is gone. The Liberals spent it, but the Conservatives neglected to say that they ran up a $50 billion deficit this year.

What is left of their political agenda? They can be tough on crime. That is what they have left. That is why I said that the Conservatives are in disarray.

Look at the title of Bill C-16. It is quite something. Bill C-16 contains the exact same provisions as Bill C-42, which died on the order paper due to prorogation. Once again, they used Parliament for partisan purposes. Bill C-16 is now known as the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act. Bill C-42, which is in fact the same bill, was known as the Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act.

The Conservatives are grasping at straws. They are trying to use any means to prove that they are tough on crime and that they are trying to defend the public. However, this bill deals with something other than crime.

The title, Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act, suggests that it will solve the problem of extremely violent offenders, even though the bill really deals with conditional sentences. It has very little to do with the extreme violence suggested by the title.

Before 1996, persons found guilty of a criminal offence and sentenced to less than two years' imprisonment had to serve the sentence in jail. They no longer participated in their regular activities, such as work or school, and lost the ability to fulfill their family, professional and social responsibilities.

Conditional sentencing for adults has only been in place for 13 years. The bill before us amends a law that has only existed for 13 years. Conditional sentencing became law in 1996 with a bill that received the support of the Bloc Québécois. Our party felt it was important to create an alternative to incarceration because judges need as many tools as possible in order to hand down the most appropriate sentence, the one likely to result in the reintegration of the offender, while guaranteeing public safety and the appearance of justice.

Once again, this takes public safety into account. It is the first condition that must be taken into account, and that is why my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin mentioned it in his excellent speech this morning.

Before handing down a conditional sentence, the judge must first respect an initial condition, that public safety not be jeopardized. If the individual is a danger to the community, the judge will not release him into the community or will not issue a sentence that allows him to be in the community. The judge will simply send him to jail.

When an individual receives a conditional sentence, this means that he will serve his sentence within the community. He therefore stays out of jail as long as he respects the mandatory and optional conditions imposed by the court.

The main condition is house arrest. The courts have decided that someone who has received a conditional sentence must, in principle, be on house arrest for the duration of the sentence.

Prior to 1996, people found guilty of a criminal offence and sentenced to terms of just a few days were required in all cases to serve their time in prison. The primary objective of conditional sentences was to reduce incarceration and give the courts an alternative.

This is where we see the Conservative demagogy. It reminds me of the Quebec film À soir on fait peur au monde. The Conservatives believe that there are many criminals roaming the streets and that they are very violent and extremely dangerous. They are talking about sentences of less than two years for serious crimes—a crime is a crime—but for which we have been trying, since 1996, to focus on reintegration: young people go to school, fathers have jobs, and so on.

When the judge has determined that there is no danger to society, it is explained to the offender that he will be monitored, but that he can keep his job and support his family, as opposed to how it was prior to 1996, when he would have been sent to prison, would have lost his job, and would not have been able to support his family.

Prior to 1996, people found guilty of a criminal offence and sentenced to terms of just a few days were required in all cases to serve their time. Since the adoption of conditional sentencing, judges can give a person who poses no danger to public safety a sentence that is less than two years to be served in the community.

The Criminal Code requires that a number of conditions be met before the judge can hand down a conditional sentence. That is important to understand. Since the Conservatives have decided to evoke images from the horror film À soir on fait peur au monde, we have to determine if this bill will really put extremely dangerous criminals in jail. The Criminal Code has requirements for conditional sentences. For one, the person must be found guilty of an offence not punishable by a minimum sentence.

There are minimum sentences and, to be eligible for a conditional sentence, the person must not be charged with a offence punishable by a minimum sentence.

The judge has to find that the offence merits a jail term of less than two years. I will say it again, a crime is a crime and it is always serious. However, when the crime is punishable by two years less a day, it is understood that this sentence obviously does not apply to the most serious crimes in society.

The judge must be convinced that serving the sentence in the community would not pose a threat to public safety. I spoke earlier about the title of the bill: Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act. The Conservatives want to be tough on crime. Every week they try to change public opinion because things are not going well with all their other political endeavours. Being tough on crime is all they have left. Of course, once again, they are trying to mislead us. Indeed, judges must be convinced that serving the sentence in the community would not pose a threat to public safety. So the first condition is that the offender must not be someone who poses a threat to society.

The judge must be convinced that the conditional sentence meets the criteria of the principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code. Of course I am not a criminal lawyer. If I have time later, I will talk more about those sections.

The following offences are ineligible: offences prosecuted by way of indictment; offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more; offences related to organized crime; terrorism offences; and serious personal injury offences, pursuant to section 752. I repeat, those offences are not eligible for conditional sentencing. Those are people who are convicted for being a member of organized crime, for a terrorism offence or for a serious personal injury offence, in which the victim was seriously injured or there was an attempt to cause serious personal injury or attempted murder, all very serious offences.

Bill C-16 adds to the list of offences that preclude conditional sentencing. Once again, the Conservatives' goal is to make that list longer. Let us continue with our original theory that the Conservatives are having political problems with the rest of their election promises. Being tough on crime is all they have left. They did not dare abolish conditional sentencing. They probably have another bill ready to go in a few years in which they will add more crimes to the list of offences that preclude conditional sentencing. That will allow them to continue their partisan politics, play their horror film again and scare everyone. That is the Conservative reality.

And that, by the way, is what the Republicans did. The crime rate in the United States is much higher than in Canada and higher still than in Quebec. The U.S. administration has had to release 30,000 prisoners over the past few months, primarily because it ran out of money, it ran out of room in the prisons and it was felt that the crimes and the sentences would be better managed through monitoring on the outside than by keeping those people on the inside.

For partisan and political purposes, the Conservatives probably want to score political points for trying to reassure people who have suffered serious harm from serious crimes. Indeed, this happens. There are street gangs. Crimes are committed, but I have never heard the government extending millions and billions of dollars to fight organized crime or to fight street gangs or very serious crimes. For that matter, I have not heard the government announce any funding for rehabilitation either.

As the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin so very intelligently made us realize, people who have committed crimes and been rehabilitated do not brag about it. We must take the time to look around us. There are people who have committed crimes, had the good fortune to be rehabilitated and today are good and honest citizens. The problem with such people is that they do not brag about it, while we are more aware of violent crimes and those who commit them because that is what we see so often on television and in other media.

As I said, our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin intelligently—brilliantly even—told us that at this point in time, we can only imagine how many sentences are handed down in every court in Quebec and the rest of Canada every day.

Errors may occur, but should we scrap the whole system because one judge makes some kind of mistake? I think that is easy for the Conservatives to do. Television cameras are typically set up near courthouses to keep an eye on what is going on. That is something we see every day, something we live with. We rarely see good news stories on television. The media like to sensationalize bad news stories. However, the thousands of rulings handed down are generally excellent considering how justice is administered in Quebec and Canada. We have inherited a very good justice system from our forebears.

We inherited our justice system from our parents and grandparents. It is a choice. I am looking at how the Conservatives want to change it. There was a big debate on abortion in the House. Our predecessors resolved that issue.

For purely partisan reasons, some people are doing everything in their power to reopen debates that have been put aside. It is the sound and fury of partisan politics once again. I often say to those who will listen that power can make people crazy. Some of the people in power in this House are well on their way there. Once again, the only thing the Conservatives have left is their tough on crime agenda, and they are going to milk it for all it is worth. That is what is going on today with Bill C-16.

We have to take a respectful approach to this bill because the cases that will be exempt from the legislation involve conditional sentencing, which was brought in in 1996. As I said, Bill C-16 adds more crimes to the list of those not eligible for conditional sentencing.

Parts of the proposed new section 742.1 read as follows:

(c) the offence is not an offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life;...

(e) the offence is not an offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years, that

(i) resulted in bodily harm,

(ii) involved the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs, or

(iii) involved the use of a weapon; and

(f) the offence is not an offence, prosecuted by way of indictment, under any of the following provisions:

(i) section 144 (prison breach),

(ii) section 172.1 (luring a child),

(iii) section 264 (criminal harassment),...

(v) section 279 (kidnapping),...

(viii) paragraph 334(a) (theft over $5000),

(ix) paragraph 348(1)(e) (breaking and entering...),

(x) section 349 (being unlawfully in a dwelling-house), and

(xi) section 435 (arson for fraudulent purpose).

It can be any kind of arson, even setting fire to a moped. That is why members have to understand that adding to the list of offences for which a judge can no longer hand down a conditional sentence restricts the power of the law passed in 1996.

Once again, the government is restricting judges' power and, I repeat, we are talking about sentences of two years or less, so two years less a day. That is the reality.

The list is so long now that it is almost like turning the clock back 10 years to a time when conditional sentences did not exist as an alternative for adults.

Criminologists have long agreed that tougher sentences do not reduce crime. Recent studies confirm that there is little correlation between the severity of a sentence and the number of offences. But publicizing arrest rates and increasing the likelihood of being arrested do really have an impact on crime.

A conditional sentence not only involves a penalty, but also rehabilitation and restorative justice. This combination is more likely than incarceration in a correctional facility to prevent an offender from continuing to endanger the public after serving his sentence.

In addition, certain conditional sentences require the offender to make restitution to the victim and society and comply with very strict rules. Since 2000—

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again about Bill C-16, which was known as Bill C-42 barely a few months ago. Two years ago it was Bill C-9.

There are always questions about the administration of justice. How can justice be better administered? How can we ensure that dangerous criminals stay behind bars as long as possible? We will not find positive answers to these questions in Bill C-16.

For those who are watching, I should explain what we are talking about. When an individual is brought before a court for having committed an offence, a break and enter for example, the judge has a myriad of options, ranging from a simple fine to jail time. Somewhere between those two options is parole and absolute discharge.

When it comes to detention, the Conservatives need to stop kidding us. I am sure that the translators, who are wonderful, will put this correctly in English: a conditional sentence is still a sentence. And that brings us to the final types of sentences a judge can impose—a fixed term sentence or a conditional sentence. Since the Conservatives are not familiar with this, I will explain it to them.

In 1996, a number of attorneys general and ministers of justice—including the current Minister of Justice, who was in Manitoba at the time—determined that this was expensive and that some people were jailed too long for nothing.

We must understand one extremely important thing, which I will repeat because the members opposite do not understand: a conditional sentence is a sentence of imprisonment. The Conservatives are saying that offenders serve their sentence at home with their feet up doing nothing. I will come back to that. They are bending the truth, if not totally lying to the public when they say such things. It is absolutely not true.

I practised law in 1985, 1990 and 1995, and from 1996 to 2003. I argued many cases and learned a lot about the system. For example, an individual is brought before a judge, who hands down a conditional sentence. It might be a good idea for certain Conservative MPs to read and consult section 718 of the Criminal Code, which is not being amended by this bill. This section is the basis of conditional sentencing. It reads:

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...

These words are important and our favourite Conservatives need to understand them:

...by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

(b) to deter the offender...

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

We see that the third objective does not come first.

The fourth objective is, “to assist in rehabilitating offenders”. Those are not my words. That is what it says in section 718 of the Criminal Code. Do the Conservatives want to abolish section 718 while they are at it?

Then there is the fifth objective, “to provide reparations for harm done to victims or the community”. An intelligent judge—and God knows, judges are intelligent—who has read and understood section 718 knows how to apply it. Let us be clear about something once and for all. It is a shame my Conservative friends are not listening to what I am saying.

A conditional sentence can only apply to sentences of less than two years.

Less than two years. Is that clear enough?

The very title of the bill is reprehensible. It is absurd. It does not apply to hardened criminals or those who commit dozens of break and enters. It applies to sentences of less than two years given for offences such as petty theft, auto theft and joy-rides. These sentences are usually given to young people who do not understand. They are not hardened criminals. Judges want them to consider their actions. We are not talking about thieves who commit armed robbery. That kind of crime buys a minimum of four years in jail because a weapon was involved. Anyone who uses a weapon to commit theft gets a minimum of four years in jail. Is that clear enough?

This bill is worse than backward; it drags us back nearly 30 years. The Conservatives' mentality is dangerous because it would move us backward.

That is not the worst of it though. When the Minister of Justice told the committee that this was what attorneys general wanted, committee members asked him if every attorney general in Canada agreed with him. He had the nerve to say that the majority agreed. The problem is that he did not study the issue. The Minister of Justice just came up with this bill. Initially, it was Bill C-42. Now it is Bill C-16, but it is the same bill. Only its number changed. The Conservatives did not study the issue. God knows that I can say so because I was a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights when we studied Bill C-42. We asked them if they had done any studies suggesting that this kind of bill is useful and necessary and that attorneys general and crown prosecutors want it. The answer was no.

So why are they introducing this type of bill? For one reason and one reason only—to respond to the Conservatives supposed target population, which is asking them to be tough on crime. The problem is that when you are tough on crime, you also need to be smart on crime. You have to understand these sentences and these demands. When the bill is studied again, they will trot out the same numbers again. Numbers can speak for themselves. Hold on tight, you are in for quite a surprise.

I will give the real numbers for those who are listening. I did not make these up; they come from the Department of Justice. Actually, they are from the Department of Public Safety, which is practically the same thing. They work hand in hand. This needs to be heard. The average annual inmate cost—I am going to take my time, Mr. Speaker; you can add this to the time I have been allotted—for persons in provincial or territorial custody—the provinces, Quebec, Yukon, Ontario—including remand or other forms of temporary detention was, listen carefully now, $52,205 in 2005-2006. I will repeat that in case the Conservatives did not understand. It cost $52,205 per year to keep someone in a provincial prison. But the best is yet to come. The cost of monitoring an offender within the community, including conditional sentences, probation, supervision, fines and release was $2,398.05 in 2006-2007. I will translate that into plain language since they did not understand. I will repeat it.

It costs $52,205 per year to keep someone in prison, while a conditional sentence costs $2,398.05 per year. The government's figures show that the recidivism rates for individuals who receive conditional sentences have significantly decreased. I am repeating that because they do not understand. The Bloc is not the one saying this.

However, if we were to adopt this bill as is tomorrow morning, we would have 13,000 to 15,000 more prisoners in our provincial detention facilities. That is many hundreds. I hope they know how to count on the other side. Let us take the lower number, 13,000, and multiply it by $52,000. I hope they know how to count. That money could be invested in rehabilitation programs and we could offer appropriate services to the people who need them.

The worst is that regions like Yukon and the Northwest Territories will pay the price because, unfortunately, those regions have a lot of crimes committed by aboriginals. There is a high rate of imprisonment among aboriginals.

In 1996, the government was smart. This government was not in power in 1996. The government implemented conditional sentences because it had thought it through and had conducted studies. It said this was about actual prison sentences. The offender must be found guilty of an offence not punishable by a minimum sentence.

It is clear that if someone commits murder, we will not waste our time. That is what the Conservatives do not understand. Conditional sentencing applies only to sentences of less than two years for which there is no mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Possession of a firearm for dangerous purposes carries a minimum sentence of three years. That is not an eligible offence and conditional sentencing would not apply. Let us take, for example, multiple charges of impaired driving. If the court imposes a sentence of more than two years, this does not apply. It applies only to people who are imprisoned for less than two years.

Whether our Conservative friends like it or not, when we see the real figures, we can see that judges have taken their role so seriously that, since 2000, they have tightened up monitoring and imposed stricter conditions for an individual to be eligible for conditional sentencing.

When conditional sentences were first being developed, around 1996 or 1997, people were very concerned about whether an individual would respect all the conditions that were set. It was out of respect for the victims—the Conservatives like it when we tell them these things—that the criteria to qualify for a conditional sentence were tightened to include custody. It is a form of imprisonment. It might be at home or at a detention centre or reception centre. The individual's schedule is monitored. The monitoring system is very important in such cases. The individual is regularly and continuously monitored.

To demonstrate this, for days on end, many of my clients were woken up at 3 a.m. by the monitoring service that called to ensure they were at home in bed. Once that was confirmed, the service wished them a good day and hung up.

They are prohibited from having anything other than a land line phone. When cell phones came on the scene, someone could gallivant all over the place and answer as though he was at home. Now conditional sentences prohibit cell phones, because the individual must be reachable at home. So what happens when someone breaches one of the conditions of his conditional sentence? This is very important.

What the Conservatives fail to grasp is that the person is sentenced, for example, to an 18-month conditional sentence, with certain conditions that are set, approved and signed by the court. The individual who breaches the conditions is arrested and serves the rest of the sentence without being eligible for parole. What does that mean? I will explain it for my Conservative friends. Take the example of an individual who is arrested and is given an 18-month conditional sentence. If he does not respect the conditions on the first week-end, he is arrested and jailed, and has to serve the rest of his sentence without possibility of parole. I can assure you, as I have represented a number of these clients, that the court will be very reluctant and hard pressed to release them under other conditions.

I would like to end by telling my Conservative colleagues that eliminating conditional sentences for 39 offences is not the way to reduce crime. This propaganda must stop. This means one thing and we must realize it. If individuals, if the Conservatives, if the Minister of Justice wish to impose jail sentences rather than conditional sentences, it is because they do not trust the judges. That is extremely dangerous. In fact, we need to realize something: if we are unhappy with a judge's sentence, we can appeal. That is what the appeal courts are there for. The government should stop beating around the bush and just say that they do not trust them. We believe that we must trust our courts and, above all, that we must keep conditional sentencing, which is a good measure, one that works well and reduces crime.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-16, which, but for prorogation, might be Bill C-42 and, but for incessant elections, might be Bill C-70. In any event, this is a proposed law that speaks to a tool the judiciary has in its toolbox called conditional sentencing.

I am struck by the previous speaker and the tone in the House generally when it comes to characterizing bills by names that presumably everyone can understand what they mean. The Conservative government attempts to cut, with a very large swath, colour with a large brush, a whole area of law with a very simply phrase.

For people tuning in to the debate about Bill C-16, they would, because of the way the government labels bills, think this is a debate about ending house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious and violent offenders. That would be the title of the book or the movie that people would be watching if they were tuning in to this debate.

When we actually peel away the layers of the onion, we realize that we are talking about an enactment of Parliament that was substantially amended in 1995, with some minor amendments in the last Parliament, which is imposing conditional sentence. It does not say imposing house arrest with a big screen TV and extreme television. That is not to be found in the code.

The Criminal Code is a large volume that regulates the laws punishing criminals for proven facts that lead to a sentence or conviction. The Criminal Code does that. It is divided up into many sections, sections involving offences against the state, invasions of privacy, offences against the person, offences against property. Administrative aspects are in there as well. There are some 800 sections in the code and one of those sections deals with imposing a conditional sentence.

Let us be clear. If someone who commits a crime is sentenced to two years less a day, that individual is eligible, in some cases, for conditional sentence. Anybody who is found guilty of an offence that gets a sentence of more than two years is not, will not be, has never been, eligible for conditional sentencing.

Maybe some the people listening today are parents. They realize that if they take away their teenage daughter's cellphone, that is pretty serious punishment. If they banish her to her room for a week, that is really serious punishment. However, if they tell her she has to eat her vegetables, that is not that serious in the realm of possibilities of sentencing.

Conditional sentencing is available to judges. It provides them with the opportunity to say that there is some possible merit in the person. The individual has done a bad thing, but maybe he or she could be rehabilitated, maybe we could get to the root cause of why he or she is acting this way.

This opens up the larger debate of what are we doing as a Parliament about crime prevention.

We have been doing very little lately because we are spending our time watching our own big screen TVs and the Minister of Justice saying that this bill would end house arrest for property and other serious offences, when in fact it is trying to curb a tool being used by judges and prosecutors every day.

Let us be clear again. A defence attorney defends a person accused of something. That is not within the realm of this debate here. We are making law that would be used by police officers and prosecutors. Police charge a person with an offence. Prosecutors will look at a whole range of proof possibilities. They will also look at the range of possible sentencing. The prosecutors, the police and eventually the judge will look at the sentence in a holistic fashion and say that there are a number of options available, such as the individual is just a bad person and he or she should be locked away. Unfortunately the Conservative government thinks everybody falls into that category, and there are a number who do.

However, there are also people who, because of addictions to substances or horrendous nurturing child development socio-economic background problems, are driven to crime. A number of people, because of mental illness, which still has not been addressed in our communities, may turn to a life of crime and perhaps, in the first few incidences, are committing crimes that a judge, a prosecutor or a police force official would say that the person could benefit from a conditional sentence. Conditional sentences are often recommended by prosecutors.

This painting of the picture by the Conservatives that all policemen and all prosecutors want the most harsh sentence and want to put the person away is not always the case.

This is why we have debate in the House and why we have committees where we will hear from the people actually doing the work, the prosecutors, the policemen and, hopefully, the judges. They will tell us that this is a tool that exists among all the other tools which include incarceration. If someone commits an offence they can be charged with an offence and incarcerated. If it is a really serious offence, the offender will get a really long jail sentence.

My friend from Edmonton—St. Albert does not want to talk about cases but let us cut it up as to the type of offences that might occur and the sentences that would be incurred.

If someone commits a really serious sexual assault involving bodily harm and it is his fourth offence, he will not get six months or a year. He will get a serious sentence, not a conditional sentence. It is an academic argument. It is a wrong argument to say that we are giving house arrest to the big screen TV watching criminals for the very serious offences on multiple occasions. The evidence will be before us in committee. Contrary to what my friend from Edmonton--St. Albert said, the committee and this Parliament have not heard any evidence about conditional sentencing. We will hear that if the bill goes to committee.

I would remind members of the House that we get the big wheel of the justice committee going and then all of a sudden there is a prorogation and we start all over again. Heavy is the head that wears the crown over there, in that the government keeps stopping Parliament and bringing in legislation and we have to hear evidence all over again.

However, we are looking forward to hearing from the participants in the justice system as to whether the tool is being used and whether it works.

As I was saying, the other tools that a judge, prosecutor and police officials have at their disposal is to work together toward incarcerating criminals. Let us review that one. In many circumstances the best deterrent for future criminal activity is having someone not out and available to do that crime. There is no question about that. The best prospect for public security and public safety with respect to certain individuals is keeping them incarcerated. A little side note is that when they are in our corrections facilities they often commit crimes as well because it is not as controlled as Canadians would like to think. Criminal activities do take place inside our corrections facilities. Therefore, when we remove someone it is not as if we are getting rid of their criminal activity. That is number one.

Number two is that without any rehabilitative programs and without any care for making the person better, the period of incarceration has, in many cases, especially for a first or second offender who might merit a conditional sentence, the opposite effect. The offender does not learn necessarily good things in prison and he or she comes out a worse offender or a worse potential offender.

There is another fallacy in the Conservatives' hide and seek justice philosophy. They think they can convince the Canadian public that by putting people away and removing them from society they will never come back into society, and, in some cases that is true. I do not have the facts in front of me about that but our list of dangerous or long term offenders who will be incarcerated forever, multiple murderers, is in the percentage of 1%, 2% or 3% of our incarcerees now. I think it is that low.

I will be conservative for a moment and say that the vast majority, 80% perhaps, of offenders will get out of prison. When they get out even the Conservative would need to come up with a reason to put them back in. Therefore, they do need to reoffend and thus the victimization reoccurs.

What is in everyone's interest is to know that incarceration happens, which is the first element in the toolkit. Second, if there is a sentence that merits a period of leave or freedom, it can be accomplished with a guilty plea, a sentence and a probation order. In some cases, a probation order would be very acceptable. However, as we heard time and again, probation orders are not as fluid. They are not a useful tool to judges because they do not allow as many conditions attended to the probation order as a conditional sentence. I do not hear the government saying that we should end all probation orders. It must think the probation order works even though it has fewer conditions than a conditional sentence regime.

The conditional sentence is the third element in the toolbox that I would like to discuss. It is found in section 742.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada which, as I have said before, is the best thing a Conservative justice minister ever did by creating the Criminal Code or putting it together. That is some 100 years ago and we are looking for some improvement and some new things from a Conservative justice minister, but near the end of the code it has a tool for judges to say that if a person is convicted of a offence and it is less than two years and, this is a key thing, the judge is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community and would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in section 718, the conditional sentence may work and may be used by a judge.

Section 718, which I have referred to a number of times, is probably the most important part of the Criminal Code because it sets out our principles of sentencing and they do not weight one more than the other. It says that if a person has done a crime we should seek to denounce that crime. There also should be an element of deterrence so that it does not happen again. Deterrence is general to the general public. If a person does something, the conviction of that and the sentence attended to it should deter people generally from doing that and it certainly should deter the person specifically.

There are also elements of rehabilitation. Is the person who committed the crime and has been convicted eligible to be rehabilitated? The goal of most of the criminal justice legislation that comes from this place must be to make society safer. Making society safer would occur if there were less crime. There would be less crime if there were a serious crime prevention agenda, a serious attended budget for crime prevention and less bickering between the federal government and the provinces with respect to how to spend resources on crime prevention.

For a moment I will digress and say that there is a bickering by distance. The provinces may get social transfers but they always say that they do not have enough resources to fund probation officers and police officers who intervene in the community. The provinces are doing very little with federal money to get involved in crime prevention. We must remember that everything with the government is storefront. It is not what is behind the storefront, but in the storefront the Conservatives put the Ombudsman of Victims of Crime, Mr. Steve Sullivan. He did an admirable job. He spoke up for victims. However, like Kevin Page, AECL and everyone who gives the government a few problems, speaks up and speaks the truth to power, the Conservatives are not renewing the contract to Mr. Sullivan. How serious are they about victims rights really and how serious are they about a crime prevention agenda?

The provinces would like to do more in this regard.

I do not know if our intergovernmental affairs critic is here but in the old days there were a number of first ministers meetings, attorneys general, justice ministers and even the prime minister might be involved occasionally in the past, but there has been very little dialogue with respect to crime prevention and to changes to the Criminal Code from the current government members.

The Conservatives are not as much interested in finding the root causes of crime and treating them, or in finding out what programs are effective and funding them, or in talking to the provinces on how to better implement their programs on a national scale, province by province and territory by territory, as they are in the 5 p.m., 6 p.m. in the Atlantic provinces and 6:30 p.m. in Newfoundland, national news stories that say, “We have done this today. Look at us. We are going to make the language simple.”

I find nothing wrong with simple language but in this case it is misleading to say that this is about house arrest. This is about the section of the code that gives the judge options. If a judge chooses to employ the conditional sentence for a crime that is less than two years, he or she may, in most cases has to, implement certain conditions, and they are here, that every person convicted of a crime that befits a conditional sentence shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour, shall appear before the court when required to do so, shall report to a supervisor within two working days after making the order, thereafter, when required and at the behest of the supervisor, shall remain within the jurisdiction of the court unless has permission to do otherwise, shall notify the court or the supervisor in advance of any change of name or address and promptly notify the court.

If any of those conditions are broken, and if provinces are adequately funded for officers to enforce these orders, which is a big problem for the provinces, the government throws out legislation, puts it on the books and subsequently has a turf war with the provinces and territories as to how the laws will be implemented and who pays for it. There is a systemic downloading of services to provinces in this regard. However, those are the standard conditions and if they are broken the person goes back.

I think we will hear from witnesses, if this goes to committee, why it is a valuable tool that need not be restricted any more than it is and needs to be a tool of the judicial discretion that exists. We must remember that from the moment the government took office it has attacked judges because it did not like anyone who was not in their caucus, which is getting smaller month by month. In other words, the government would like to have judges like those in the United States who run on political campaigns, on a set of political promises and toe a political party line.

The government has had very little respect for judges since it came to power and now it wants to take away further discretion. It is okay to have that belief, but when it stands and says that it believes in judicial discretion, its actions with respect to legislation does not show that.

Let us talk about a good judge, a good prosecution and good police officer bringing an individual to court who may be saved. These additional conditions are available to a judge for people who have been found guilty of an offence for which a conditional sentence order might apply. They could be ordered to abstain from the consumption of alcohol or other intoxicating substances. There is no such order in our corrections facilities. It is a given that they cannot in corrections facilities but the reality is that it happens.

As I said earlier, and I think we would all agree, many people who commit crimes and are in our prisons have substance abuse issues. It is the root cause of much crime in this country. We should be doing something to allow judges to force people convicted of offences to refrain from consuming alcohol or intoxicating substances.

Another condition could be abstaining from owning, possessing or carrying a weapon. Other conditions are to provide for the support and care of dependents, if the person has them; perform up to 240 hours of community services over a period not exceeding 18 months; attend a treatment program approved by a province; and comply with, and this is the catch-all, such other reasonable conditions as the court considers desirable.

Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us keep conditional sentences subject to what the evidence tells us about their efficacy. Let us not completely denigrate the system, which is the whole pith and substance of what the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert, in leading the government in this discussion, said. He said that because conditional sentences are used, so people can watch their big screen TVs, the whole system of justice is brought into disrepute.

What brings the system of justice into disrepute is the agent of the government, the representative of the government who stands here and says that something that is being used every day by good judges, good prosecutors and good policemen is not working. That is what brings it into disrepute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Status of Women

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Minister of State (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, the government has taken a number of concrete steps to protect women across this country.

We passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act. We have made significant investments in policing. We are supporting Sisters in Spirit. We have introduced Bill C-42, which is to end conditional sentences for violent crimes such as kidnapping, human trafficking and rape, and yet I note there are so many members in the opposition benches who are against this piece of legislation.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much.

I have a couple of things to say, Monsieur Ménard. You said I'm looking at the worst way a number of these offences could happen.

You're experienced in the criminal justice system. When a crown proceeds by indictment, there's an acknowledgement that these crimes have been committed in the worst way. In terms of your case.... There are many cases that could be charged as summary conviction, but when offences are charged by indictment it's because a determination has been made by the crown and the police that it is a very serious matter. And that's what I have said, that when the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code have been committed and an individual has been convicted...my point under Bill C-42 is that these people should be ineligible for house arrest or conditional sentencing.

With respect to the costs, Ms. Kane who was here with me in the previous hour, indicated that there would be very little cost to the federal government in terms of its penitentiary system, because one of the criteria for having a look at whether it's appropriate, one of the very things they look at, is whether the person is likely to get a sentence of less than two years. Again, getting back to what Mr. Comartin said, while provincial attorneys general are aware that this is coming forward and there will be costs to provincial correctional institutes, she indicated there would be virtually no impact on the federal penitentiary system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I was just reminding members of the committee to provide us with the names of those you'd like to have here as witnesses on Bill C-42.

We'll now move to the supplementary estimates.

We have the Minister of Justice with us, and accompanying him, in support of the minister, we have Deputy Minister John Sims. Welcome, Mr. Sims.

Minister, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

That's Bill C-42.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

Before we move on to the supplementary estimates, further to our study of Bill C-42, I'll ask committee members to begin to think about who you'll want to have here as witnesses so we can compile the list. At this time we have three witnesses on the clerk's list, and I'm sure there will be many more. If I could ask you to provide the clerk with those names, that would be very helpful.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your attendance here today. Again, let me thank you for your hard work on this and all the other bills that form part of your very aggressive safe street and safe community agenda.

With respect to this bill, we've had some interesting discussion today on how it affects offenders. Mr. Ménard referred to prison as a crime school, and we've heard some interesting questions regarding provincial attorneys general and solicitors general and their positions. But as you know, I take a different position. I'm always interested in victims and victims groups and their position. I think our criminal justice system needs to be more victim focused. I know you meet from time to time with victims groups and victims advocates, as do I. Recently this committee heard from the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation. I'm curious to know if you've met with them or other victims groups, and how they feel about Bill C-42 and how this important piece of legislation will protect them and their interests and rights.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

For the estimates, I'll keep my notes for Bill C-42. Did you want me to make the speech again on Bill C-42?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will talk about it again in the next round. I am going to ask questions about Bill C-42.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

You see, I, too, was a litigator for a long time. I argued for a suspended sentence many times, and I was often successful , because there is one fundamental thing, Mr. Minister: the judicial discretion of judges. It seems to me that what you are trying to do with this bill is take away judges' discretion. I heard you say, Mr. Minister, that it is not normal for a person who has committed sexual assault or sexual touching to be sent home. Obviously. No judge has ordered that; I am not aware of any. If you are aware of such a case, I would like to know. That is clearly unacceptable. It is clear that judges have much better judgment than that.

I am worried, and the figures we have been given cannot lie. Each year, between 13,000 and 15,000 criminals are given a suspended sentence. According to staff in your department, a third of those criminals, which, if I know how to count, is between 3,000 and 5,000, would no longer qualify. And because it is a provincial matter, it will be up to the provinces to take an additional 3,000 to 5,000 offenders. Speaking proportionally, Quebec alone would expect to have an extra 1,000 to 1,200 offenders. I would like you to tell me that the Solicitor General of Quebec told you that he agrees with Bill C-42, but I have not read that anywhere. I don't know if you have a document on that subject somewhere. If you do, I would like to have it, because I do not have it. I have nothing from Quebec which tells me that anyone agrees that Bill C-42 should be passed. Yes, there have to be restrictions, but on December 16, 2005, Statistics Canada released figures showing that judges were clamping down on people who violated the conditions of their suspended sentence.

I am asking myself this question. Mr. Minister, is it not too soon to review legislation that provides for suspended sentences and has been in force since 1996? Could we not give it 15 or 20 years at least to see if the courts have adjusted to sentencing before we go back and amend these sections of the Criminal Code yet again?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Minister, I often reiterate that two or three months ago when you and the Prime Minister were here, we met people who had been scammed, robbed or bilked by what are known as white-collar criminals. They subsequently came to give evidence. They spoke to us and you greeted them. They then told us that they were almost insulted that those people had the charge stayed at some point, as is currently the case with one of them. They were genuinely shocked, and the retiree who spoke to us, Mr. Kube, said that he had lost his faith in the justice system. We have to restore people's trust in the justice system.

I think this is an important element. This is my first comment, and I am a bit disappointed, because Bill C-9, which I worked on with my colleagues, was completely gutted the last time. I could not believe it, and I remember that in Montreal around the same time, there were seven or eight home invasions for which people were given suspended sentences because it was their first offence and they did not hit anyone. Yet they entered someone's home at night. The people were afraid.

I would like to know if, in your opinion, Bill C-42 can restore the faith of those who in reality are good people but are literally being assaulted by there criminals, both economically and in their private home.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

No. First of all, the agenda spells out what he'll be addressing, in order. The other thing is that he has brought counsel on Bill C-42 with him, whereas counsel on the supplementary estimates will be here later in the meeting.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Excuse me, Mr. Minister.

I would like some information. Since we have the minister for two hours, until around 5:30 p.m., and we have to study the Supplementary Estimates, should we not give the Minister — this is just a suggestion — the opportunity to talk about Bill C-42 as well as the Supplementary Estimates so that we do not have to go back. We could ask questions about the Supplementary Estimates or Bill C-42. I don't know if that would be acceptable to the Committee members, but it might save us some time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right. I've taken note of that.

Hearing no further comments, we'll then move ahead with the schedule as we've agreed.

Minister Nicholson, it's good to have you back. You're here for the first hour on Bill C-42, which is An Act to amend the Criminal Code (Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act).

I understand you have with you the acting director general and senior general counsel, Catherine Kane, as well as Matthias Villetorte, who is counsel with the criminal law policy branch.

I welcome all three of you.

Minister, you know the drill. You have ten minutes and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Monsieur Lemay.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Minister of State (Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sarnia—Lambton for the work that she has done to end violence against women.

For Status of Women Canada, one of our key pillars is ending violence against women. We are in fact supporting hundreds of projects across the country that address the number of faces of violence against women and children.

We have also taken a number of initiatives. We have introduced and passed the Tackling Violent Crime Act. We have made significant investments in policing. We are supporting Sisters in Spirit. We also introduced most recently Bill C-42 to end house arrest and conditional sentences for violent sexual crimes. We hope the opposition will support us.

Criminal Code

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my career as a criminal lawyer, my most important client was always the one in front of me, whom I had to defend before the court. It is worth repeating: justice issues are very important. I do not mean to denigrate the work of other members, because I respect what they do, but this work is very important because it gives people their freedom. We must give this the attention it deserves.

As a parliamentarian and a lawyer, when someone forgets—I was going to use another word, but I will avoid it so as to avoid a point of order—deliberately or not, to hand over documents or to give us the information we need to make decisions, I take exception to that. In fact, I think I should take exception more often.

Bills C-52, C-42, C-36, C-31 and C-32 need to be studied immediately. Should they be studied quickly? No, we will take our time and give them the careful consideration they deserve, as we should and as we are expected to do. Then we will see.

For now, the issue that concerns me is Bill C-36. In my opinion, we must take time to give it the consideration it deserves. The Conservatives must stop forgetting to give us the documents needed to study this bill.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you, Monsieur Guimond. You're very generous with those areas that you think I should take over. You started with the public safety minister, even the finance minister, and all those....

Again, this is very targeted. It's very specific. It makes sense. I think you will find that people within your constituency and those who you speak with will be very supportive of the measures we are taking here.

One of the things we've done is to make the whole system more user-friendly for victims of crime in terms of the impact it has, requiring the crown to have a look at the requests and making sure these are available.

With respect to the accelerated parole provisions, again, we're moving on those. My other colleagues are having a look at this.

In and of itself, I think, this a positive move. I know that if you're in the opposition, you're always saying that there's some other bill we could be doing. But this is specifically targeted at those individuals who commit white collar crime. I think these are all very reasonable provisions. I'm hoping that the Bloc will have a look at this and say, “Okay, let's do it.”

I have another bill, as you know, to get rid of conditional sentencing. I don't think people who get convicted of fraud should have the ability to go home on house arrest afterwards.

Yes, I want you to pass this bill, but I can also make the pitch that I'd like to see you pass Bill C-42, which gets rid of house arrest for people who commit fraud.

In one sense, I agree with you. Is this the whole show? Is this the whole package? No. It is not the whole package. The bill on getting rid of accelerated parole is an important component of what we have to do, as is getting rid of house arrest for those fraudsters; I have a real problem with that. I know you've heard me before on this, but the idea that you can be convicted of fraud and then get sent home afterwards, or have the ability to get sent home, I have a problem with.

Anyway, that's another bill for another time.

Thank you for your question.

[The Honourable Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Rob Nicholson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The short title of this was just pointed out to me. You can refer to it as the Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act. It's also known as Bill C-52. This enhances the sentencing provisions for fraud, in particular white collar crime.

The Criminal Code already criminalizes a vast array of what could be called white collar crime, such as bribery, credit card fraud, and forgery, and with the passage of Bill S-4, identity theft, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to get that one passed. That's an important contribution in this area.

The offence of fraud is the most important offence in our arsenal against white collar crime. Fraud consists of two elements: deception or dishonesty, coupled with an actual loss of money or other items of economic value or merely the risk of such loss. So you can see the breadth and flexibility of this offence is adequate to capture security-related frauds like accounting frauds that overstate the value of securities issuers to shareholders and investors, misstatements about the state of the company, or Ponzi schemes of this sort, which has attracted so much attention recently in the United States and Canada.

The fraud offence is also an effective weapon against other kinds of fraud, such as mass-marketing fraud, real estate or title fraud, home renovation fraud, health care fraud, or other kinds of insurance fraud, tax evasion, and old scams now perpetrated with new technologies.

For too long I believe our justice system has not focused enough on the scam artists who take advantage of the trust of others. With the global economic downturn, as I indicated, massive Ponzi schemes have been revealed. I think that underlines the point we've made here and in the House of Commons and to the public at large that we must send a new, stronger message in this area.

The government has a comprehensive plan for sending that message. As members of the committee, you are all aware that the key aspect of the government's response is Bill C-53, which eliminates accelerated parole under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. This is the responsibility of the Minister of Public Safety, but of course it is a legislative initiative I strongly support.

Another piece of our plan is Bill C-42, which will put an end to conditional sentences for fraudsters, among others.

Let me return to Bill C-52, the Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act. To improve the law quickly the government wanted this piece of legislation to be entirely focused. For this reason, the various sentencing measures in this bill are targeted at fraud offenders specifically. The current maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment, the highest maximum in the code short of life. The maximum sentence is adequate, but we believe that more can be done to ensure that sentences reflect the devastation caused by fraud.

The first amendment in Bill C-52 is a mandatory penalty for fraud in excess of $1 million. Fraud over $1 million is currently a statutory aggravating factor. This bill will convert that aggravating factor into a circumstance that results automatically in a mandatory penalty of at least two years in prison. Any fraud or series of frauds that result in the loss of more than $1 million must necessarily have been the result of a complex, well-organized, well-planned scheme and quite likely supported by additional crimes, like forgery. Any fraud that rises to this level of loss must be considered serious.

Many frauds, as we know, are larger than this, so it's important to be clear that two years is the floor, not the ceiling. The actual sentence imposed for a larger fraud will obviously reflect all the additional blame for the elements of that fraud, many of which are captured by existing aggravating factors under section 380.1 of the code. This bill will supplement those aggravating factors with new ones if the duration, complexity, magnitude, or degree of the planning was significant; if the offence had a significant impact on the victim, given their personal circumstances; if the offender failed to comply with applicable regulatory or licensing regimes; or if the offender concealed or destroyed relevant records.

All of these factors highlight, in one way or another, conduct or results that are completely unacceptable to Canadians. The new aggravating factors, in conjunction with the existing ones, will be applied by sentencing courts to arrive at a just sentence on the particular facts of each case.

Another new measure is the introduction of a prohibition order that can be part of the sentence. The Criminal Code has several prohibition orders in place that are designed to help prevent offenders from reoffending. One such example is the order that is often made against a person convicted of a number of child sexual offences. The order, for instance, could prohibit them from, among other things, working in schools or other places where they would be in a position of trust or authority over young people.

Along the same lines, this bill will enable the court to order that the convicted offender be prohibited from having control over or authority over another person's money or real or valuable securities--up to life. Breaching this prohibition order will itself be an offence.

Other aspects of Bill C-52 focus on improving the responsiveness of the justice system to the needs of victims. It contains provisions designed to encourage the use of restitution orders in fraud cases. The Criminal Code currently enables judges to order offenders to pay restitution to victims in appropriate circumstances. Restitution may be ordered to help cover monetary losses incurred by victims, among other things as a result of the loss of property caused by a crime. Bill C-52 would require judges to consider restitution in all cases in which an offender is found guilty of fraud. If a judge decides not to make a restitution order, he or she would have to give reasons for declining to do so.

The bill would require a judge, before imposing a sentence on an offender, to inquire of the crown whether reasonable steps had been taken to provide victims with an opportunity to indicate whether they are seeking restitution. This is designed to ensure that sentencing does not take place before victims have had a chance to indicate that they would like to seek restitution from the offender, as well as allow time for victims to establish their monetary losses.

The bill contains provisions aimed at encouraging courts to consider the impact that fraud can have, not only on individuals but also on groups and communities. The Criminal Code currently requires courts, when sentencing an offender, to consider a victim impact statement describing the harm done to or the loss suffered by a victim of the offence. Canadian courts have already in previous cases considered impact statements made on behalf of a community.

This bill would explicitly allow courts to consider a statement by a person on a community's behalf describing the harm done to or the losses suffered by the community when imposing a sentence on an offender found guilty of fraud. A community impact statement would allow a community to express publicly, and to the offender directly, the loss or harm that has been suffered in order to allow the community to begin a rebuilding and healing process.

Mr. Chairman, those are the major elements of this bill. I look forward to the speedy passage of this important piece of legislation.

Thank you.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to what day the House will be doing its annual tributes to the sacrifices of our veterans and those in the Canadian Forces currently serving, that will be under negotiation. I suspect that is something that will be discussed among all House leaders in the days ahead. We will decide, obviously, collectively and co-operatively on the appropriate time to make that important tribute.

In regard to our ongoing justice program, obviously we are going to continue along, as we have last week and this week, for the remainder of the week with our justice legislation. I would note that since my last statement, we introduced Bill C-53, Protecting Canadians by Ending Early Release for Criminals Act, and Bill C-54, Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act. Both of those additional bills are a key part of our ongoing efforts to reform the justice system in our country.

We sent to committee this week Bill C-42, Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and other Serious Crimes Act; Bill C-52, Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act; Bill C-46, Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act; and Bill C-47, Technical Assistance for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century Act.

By the day's end, we hope to conclude debate on Bill C-43, Strengthening Canada's Corrections System Act. If we do that, I intend to call Bill C-31, the modernizing criminal procedure bill, and Bill C-19, the anti-terrorism bill.

Tomorrow we will continue with yet another justice bill, Bill C-35, Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, followed by the remainder of the justice bills that I noted if they have not been completed.

Next week I intend to call Bill C-50, the employment insurance for long tenured workers' bill, which is at report stage, having had it returned from committee.

Following Bill C-50, we will call for debate the report and third reading stage of Bill C-27, Electronic Commerce Protection Act, and second reading of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act,

Finally, Wednesday, November 4, will be an allotted day.

Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise here today to speak to Bill C-46. We will probably study Bill C-47 either later today or tomorrow. Bills C-46 and C-47 are very closely related to each other and, for those watching us, have to do with cybercrime.

It appears that the Canadian government has finally entered the 21st century and wants to address the very serious problem of cybercrime. Before going into the details, I would like to give some background. There was a convention, if we can call it that, known as the convention on cybercrime. That convention was the subject of many meetings. In fact, there were 27 different versions of the convention on cybercrime before the final version was drafted and signed by many countries, including Canada, the United States, Japan, South Africa, and even the Council of Europe. All the countries that signed the convention undertook to introduce one or more bills to implement the convention on cybercrime. That is precisely what the government is doing here today.

We can examine the technical details of the bill in committee. Yes, the Bloc Québécois agrees that Bill C-46 should move forward and be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. This will also probably be true for Bill C-47.

Bill C-46 should allow police forces to adapt their investigative techniques to modern technologies like cellphones, iPods, the Internet, as well as social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter that link today's online world. This bill will give police forces access to such technologies.

When a bill like this is introduced there is one thing the government and parliamentarians must not forget: the bill must not infringe on basic rights even though we are trying to properly equip our police forces to deal with crime. All of this is being done in response to what happened in 2001. Even though we know that work on cybercrime began in 1995, the events of September 2001 had a substantial impact. That is when governments realized they did not have the means to intercept certain communications. Before and after 1995, and even before and after 2001, surveillance was used. It was very easy to realize you were being followed. We are not talking about a James Bond movie here. We are not nearly as sophisticated as the show 24, where the characters are totally equipped to deal with crimes of this nature. We needed to find tools to help deal with cybercrime and make them available to our police forces.

Cybercrime is very subtle and very insidious. It is everywhere today. The members opposite, especially those from the Conservative Party, talk about the luring of children or what some people attempt to do with computers, namely slowly but surely approach children to have sexual encounters.

It is much more than that. I am not saying that the luring of children is not a serious crime, far from it. This is an extremely serious crime. There are also other crimes that are much more subtle, including identity theft and the planning of major crimes. Just look at the London subway bombings. They were planned right here in Canada. Somewhere near Toronto, attacks were being planned with global targets. Here in Canada, the police thanked an individual whose assistance was instrumental in foiling a crime about to unfold in Great Britain.

Cybercrime has become a global phenomenon. Today, we cannot simply say that cybercrime only occurs in Canada, Quebec, or Ottawa and the surrounding region. Cybercrime is a global phenomenon and it has to be addressed globally. That is the purpose of Bill C-46 and Bill C-47, which we will study in the coming days.

There is something worrying me. We will have to carefully study the intrusion into the personal life of an individual. I hesitate to say this because the line between the intrusion into the rights of an individual versus the protection of society is increasingly blurred. We will have to keep a very close eye on this as we study the bill. We must ensure that citizens do not run the risk of being more vulnerable to an intrusion into their private lives. I do not think that anyone in this House is against adapting legislation to the new realities in technology and crime.

I believe that it is abundantly clear that criminals, especially those working on the Web, are brilliant for the most part. Anyone who can use such tools as Facebook or Twitter and the whole Internet is intelligent enough to hatch a good plan for a crime.

We are very close to that reality when we see someone using their cell phone, sending coded messages and providing information over the Internet. We have to follow this up. I will give the example of the transfer of “illegal” funds to tax havens. I spoke about this when debating Bill C-42 and Bill C-52. Today, criminals who use computer technology are increasingly smart. Thus, police forces must be equipped to deal with them. That is the objective of Bill C-46.

Technologies do not just benefit criminals and are also available to police. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is important and rather urgent for police to be equipped to detect not just crimes that have been committed, not just those about to be committed, but those that are being planned. We have to be one step ahead of the criminal planning a crime and able to intervene before an offence is committed. That is the objective of Bill C-46.

However, we must avoid allowing the police to use their investigative tools to gain access to a very large amount of information—it goes that far—but we must also monitor some peoples' activities on the Internet to learn more about their private lives. It goes far beyond listening to telephone conversations. This bill goes much further than that.

However, we must find a balance between the fundamental rights to privacy and safety. That is what this is all about. Is the right to privacy more important that the right to safety? That line is easily crossed by police officers or unscrupulous individuals.

We must remember that some police offers were convicted of having used the computer system of the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec to monitor a spouse's new friend and watch over the movements of that individual. Those police officers were convicted because they had taken private information.

We must be very careful, and this will probably be the most important debate over the next few months. The Ligue des droits et libertés has raised some concerns. We must be careful, we must be prudent, we must be aware, and we must realize that there could be some slip-ups. When it comes to truly addressing security concerns, is protecting the rights of individuals less important than protecting society? That is a debate that will have to be held when the time comes to examine the bill in committee.

It is clear, and I would like to share a little about what the Ligue des droits et libertés has said. According to the Ligue, the bill constitutes an unprecedented invasion of privacy. It has brought up the following points. The government is presenting its bills as a way to make the necessary changes to traditional investigative powers for electronic surveillance to adapt to new communication technologies. But there is no comparison between the information transmitted through a telephone conversation and information that circulates freely.

Moreover, unlike telephone conversations, which leave no trace unless they are recorded, modern communications leave a trail in computer memories that can be detected long after the fact. That is a very important point, and I hope that nobody in this Parliament or in Canada or Quebec believes that once an email has been sent, it is over and done with. Unfortunately for them, I have bad news, because when people send an email using their computer or even their BlackBerry, there is always a trail. Their hard drives retain information about every email ever sent, and that information can be retrieved. That is where we find ourselves in a grey area.

But the Ligue des droits et libertés adds that everything we do in our everyday lives could come under police investigation. They will have access to lists of the websites we visit, emails we send and receive, credit card purchases, purchases of all kinds—clothing, books, winter gear—our outings, our movements abroad and in Canada, gas purchases, on-line and ATM banking transactions and medical information. Naturally, the list might get even longer.

We have to be prudent. I do not necessarily share all of the concerns expressed by the Ligue des droits et libertés, but they are urging us to be prudent. As parliamentarians, we have to use our judgment. We have to tell police forces—the RCMP, the Sûreté du Québec, the Ontario Provincial Police and other police services in large municipalities—that there are lines that must not be crossed once Bill C-46 is passed.

I firmly believe that one thing is for sure: police forces must have the tools they need to deal with crime in the 21st century. Yes, armed robberies and bank heists are still happening, although less frequently according to the latest statistics. We still hear about corner store hold-ups and all kinds of other assaults. But there is now a new kind of crime called cybercrime. We have been looking for ways to fight it since 1995. We have to make sure we have the tools to do that.

I listened closely to what the Ligue des droits et libertés said, and I feel that we have to be careful. The Ligue says that the bill provides little or no protection against unreasonable seizures without a warrant. The authorities will be able to obtain subscriber data even though the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act recognizes that this information is private. This is provided for in Bill C-47, but the authorities could still obtain this information. Without a warrant and on the basis of a suspicion, an officer will be able to ask a service provider to keep the contents of all your communications. It is like asking the post office to photocopy all your mail in case something should happen. I feel that people may go a bit too far sometimes, but this serves as a reminder that we must be cautious. I do not necessarily share the views of the Ligue des droits et libertés, but as politicians, we have to listen to both sides of the story.

The Ligue des droits et libertés also says that with a warrant obtained on the basis of a mere suspicion, an agent will easily be able to compel the service provider to turn over all its lists and so on. I believe that this is a bit dangerous, and we will have to address it when this bill is studied in committee. The Ligue added that with a warrant, which can be obtained on the basis of reasonable grounds to believe—less stringent conditions than for wiretapping—the content of your communications could be intercepted.

Certainly, what the Ligue des droits et libertés is saying is important. It is calling on parliamentarians to be careful when we print and pass legislation, but especially when we apply it. Once the law is passed, it may be too late to amend it. I will say one thing right now: police forces must be equipped to deal with cybercrime and 21st century crime. It is clear that crime prevention is one promising solution. The police will need to be able to prevent such crimes, and that takes equipment.

Obviously, the authorities have to try to uncover a plot before it is carried out. Once a crime has been committed, it is a little late to intervene, even if the criminals are brought to justice. In closing, if the authorities can thwart the crime before it is committed, I believe that this bill is a step in the right direction.

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

[The Acting Speaker, 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 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.

[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--

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.

[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, 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.

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.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need to ask ourselves why conditional sentences were created.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

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.

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.

Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member would have heard in my speech, Bill C-42 addresses the issue of conditional sentencing, which is something that we support strongly. The government does not believe that conditional sentences should be an option for fraud.

I am not familiar with the details of the amount stolen by Mr. Lacroix, but if there were 9,000 victims, one would expect that the value of that crime probably did reach $1 million or more.

I am pleased to see that members of the Bloc are concerned about white collar crime. However, if they were really concerned about white collar crime in this country they would have supported the national securities regulator, which would strengthen the ability of securities regulators across Canada to enforce the securities laws of Canada and really get at the root cause of securities fraud.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my strong support to Bill C-52, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud). This bill is a message to fraudsters in the headlines and a response to the victims who have suffered due to the greed and deceit of these fraudsters. The message is that our law will not tolerate this conduct and that serious sentences will result.

As this government has said time and again, it is time to put the concerns of victims at the forefront. While Bill C-52 may not restore their life savings and may not deter all future fraud, it does demonstrate that we mean business when we say that those guilty of fraud will be held accountable.

The troubling aspect of fraud is that any one of us could be a victim. Even though we may be careful in all our personal financial matters, today's white-collar criminals are clever and smooth, and even the most cautious investor could be caught in a fraudulent scheme. It is a shame that these fraudsters could not put their cleverness to good use to the benefit of society in such tough economic times.

Other speakers have highlighted the nature and scope of fraud today, and I am sure we can all think of other examples. We know that such schemes are not limited to organized crime.

We have heard a lot about Ponzi schemes recently, but we have also heard about the impact on victims of a wider range of other types of fraud. The impact on the victim of a $500 fraud may be just as devastating as the impact of a $1 million fraud if the victim has limited means. These reforms address the offence of fraud regardless of value, although there are mandatory minimum sentences applicable for fraud of over $1 million.

Fraud, regardless of the value, is a real and serious crime with real and serious consequences, and it is time that everyone in the criminal justice system took fraud seriously. Bill C-52 is an important step in the right direction. It will improve the Criminal Code sentencing provisions for fraud to ensure that sentences imposed on offenders adequately reflect the harm they cause.

For fraud that has a value of $1 million or more, that in the “large scale” category, a minimum sentence of two years will be imposed. I should make it clear, though, that this is only a minimum and where the fraud is larger than that, as it is so often, or if there are other aggravating factors, the sentence should be well above two years and can go as high as 14 years.

The bill is not just about the ultimate sentence for the offender. It is also about the victim's role in the sentencing process. The Criminal Code has evolved over the years to improve the experience of victims in the justice system and to provide a role, albeit limited, for victims of crime. These provisions include victim impact statements and the opportunity to present such a statement along with consideration of restitution at sentencing, testimonial aids and publication bans on the victim's identity, where needed.

Bill C-52 will further address the need to consider victims of crime when sentencing the offender for fraud. For example, the reforms will make clear that if the fraud had a particularly significant impact on the victim because of his or her financial situation, health or any other relevant factor, that should aggravate the sentence. In other words, those factors, as well as others, should move the sentence up toward the maximum. I would note that this is another aspect that will be welcomed by victims, because all victims agree that no one else should suffer as they have and that such fraud must be prevented from happening in the future.

A new prohibition order can be part of an offender's sentence. When so ordered by a judge, the offender can be prohibited from having authority over another person's money, real property or valuable securities in any employment or volunteer capacity in the future. If the offender does not respect this prohibition, he or she can be charged with a separate offence.

As mentioned, the Criminal Code already permits victim impact statements and provides for restitution to be part of the sentence in appropriate circumstances. Bill C-52 highlights the importance of both measures when it comes to fraud.

The Criminal Code currently provides that judges may consider a statement made by a victim of crime, known as a victim impact statement. Its purpose is to provide the sentencing judge with additional information, in the victim's own words, on the harm or loss suffered by the victim as a result of the offence. The statement is shared with the offender in advance, and victims may be cross-examined on the statement. Although this cross-examination rarely happens, it does ensure that the statement stays focused on the harm caused and not on recommendations about the sentence.

The statement provides judges with information on the impact or effect of the offence. For victims of fraud, the impact will be significant and can extend not only to their financial loss but to their sense of trust and overall well-being.

The bill also acknowledges that it is not just the actual victim of fraud who will suffer a loss or an impact. If the victim has been stripped of his or her savings, then they will not be buying goods and services, participating in leisure and charitable activities, pursuing their hobbies and interests or enjoying life in their communities.

The provisions in Bill C-52 recognize this and go a step further than the victim impact statements by enacting a community impact statement provision for fraud. Community impact statements are not unheard of, quite the contrary, but the code does not specifically provide that the court should consider such statements. The existing victim impact statement provisions in the code include that the court may also consider any other evidence concerning the victim for the purpose of determining the sentence.

This authority has led some courts to broadly interpret the term victim so that others impacted by the crime, including communities, have submitted statements at the time of sentence. There have been several examples in the case law of the courts' acceptance that crimes have an impact on the community as a whole.

Bill C-52 would make that recognition clearer with respect to fraud. When an offender is sentenced for fraud, the court may consider a statement made by a representative of the community describing the loss or harm to the community. The statement must be in writing, identify the community, clarify that the person can speak on behalf of the community, and be shared with the crown and the defence. So, for example, as I mentioned, where the victim cannot participate in the activities and the economy of his or her community, that community may suffer and that community may seek to submit a community impact statement.

As other speakers have noted, community impact statements are quite consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing that are laid out in the Criminal Code, in particular, to provide reparations for the harm done to the victims or the community and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and to their community.

I would also like to note the reforms regarding restitution.

Many speakers have noted the need for victims to actually receive restitution. No one disagrees that this should occur, but the reality is that if there is no money or not enough money to address the victim's losses, this cannot happen.

Restitution, to have any real meaning for the offender, must be paid by the offender to the victim. Where offenders can do so, they often do, so they can get a lesser sentence, but if they cannot make restitution, it is likely pointless to suggest that they do only to dash the hopes of the victims later.

We also need to keep in mind that we are reforming the criminal law and the sentences for fraud. The sentence must take into account a range of factors and restitution can be a part of that sentence, but if the restitution is not paid, the offender is still serving the other parts of his sentence and that restitution debt will remain to be paid. I should also note that the ability of an offender to pay restitution must also be considered before this is included as part of his or her criminal sentence.

As noted, restitution is the payment by the offender to the victim of a specific amount that reflects the financial losses of the victim. An order for restitution may be made as part of the overall sentence imposed on the offender as a stand-alone measure or as part of a probation order or a conditional sentence.

Of course, a conditional sentence should not be an option for fraud and it will not be an option for fraud once Bill C-42, the conditional sentence bill, is passed, because it carries a 14-year maximum penalty.

Bill C-52 would make a real difference in addressing fraud. No one disagrees that other initiatives are also needed: prevention, regulation, enforcement and prosecution.

In summary, the bill would help to improve the responsiveness of the criminal process for victims of fraud. It would require the sentencing court to consider if restitution should be ordered and it would permit the court to receive a community impact statement in cases where a community, in addition to individuals, have suffered from fraud.

I would encourage all hon. members of the House to support this bill and ensure that it becomes law as soon as possible.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-52, Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act.

I believe this is something that has unfortunately affected too many victims in recent years. We have every right to expect the government to amend legislation to reflect this situation, which is not new. However, in the context of the deregulation of financial markets and changes in technology that now make possible operations previously impossible to hide or to carry out, it is clear that the government must modernize our laws in this regard.

Unfortunately, the bill the government has introduced is way off the mark. In fact, it appears more like a public relations operation to show that the government is doing something. It looks more like a public relations move in keeping with the ideological battle the Conservatives are waging to introduce into Canada a sort of justice based on the American model, which is currently being challenged by the harsh economic reality.

In California, for example, more is spent on the prison system than on universities, because the laws have been tightened over the years automatically and without thought. The problem is a serious one. California, on the brink of bankruptcy, has had to release 40,000 prisoners because it could no longer feed them.

In order to avoid the extremes a number of American states had to face, it seems to me there should be a much more vigorous and broad public debate on the type of justice we want, rather than what the Conservatives are offering us. They in fact are offering us measures piecemeal that aim to establish a justice system that has nothing to do with the values of Quebeckers and Canadians, I am convinced, with no public debate and no real examination of all the aspects.

This bill is therefore off the mark, as it will not contribute in any way to fighting white collar crime. On the contrary, it includes a whole series of neo republican Conservative themes, on minimum sentences, for example. I will come back to this.

There should be a debate on the way to modernize our laws, in matters of justice, in particular, but it applies to everything to do with the regulation of the financial sector. It is very clear that we cannot continue in the environment engendered by the 1990s. There must be new regulations for the financial sector worldwide and within individual countries. The debate must get underway. It is in this context that the Bloc Québécois has decided to vote in favour of this bill, even if it does not meet the target it claims it wants to meet, so that it may be studied in committee. At that point we can introduce measures that might bring real solutions to white collar crime.

Very clearly, this kind of debate cannot be held piecemeal, as the Conservatives are trying to do with nearly half of the bills before us amending the Criminal Code or dealing with the justice system. We have to have a genuine debate where all of the principles on which a justice system should be based are front and centre in the public discussion. Obviously, the members of this House must be participants, but Canadian and Quebec society as a whole must also take part. The bill will be considered in committee and a number of proposals will be made that seem to us to be much more promising than what we see in the bill. Once again, the bill does not reach all the targets it says it wishes to reach.

When we look at it closely, as I will have an opportunity to do in a moment, we see there is a fly in the soup, as one of my friends used to say. That means there are some hitches, some measures are proposed that are essentially a smokescreen.

I will start right off with the question of minimum sentences. The Conservatives want to implement minimum sentences everywhere.

We are currently debating Bill C-42, which proposes to eliminate conditional sentences in order to create two things at opposite ends of the spectrum. We will have either suspended sentences or minimum sentences of imprisonment for two years. That is going to be completely untenable for judges. We will have situations in which accused persons who should have been given a conditional sentence, for example, find themselves with suspended sentences or with no sentence at all, in order to avoid a minimum of imprisonment for two years. There will also be people who will be sentenced to two years for whom a different approach should have been taken, in terms of rehabilitation. What we are seeing in C-52 is a debate that has run through this entire Parliament, an obsession on the part of the Conservatives.

Minimum sentences serve no purpose. That is shown by every study, and I think the example of Americans, or of the USA, as my colleague from Sherbrooke likes to say, demonstrates this clearly. That society has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, and that incarceration rate in fact has a perverse effect, because it artificially lowers the unemployment rate. Every time the unemployment rate in Canada and Quebec is compared to the rate in the United States, we have to add 1 to 1.5 percentage points to it. There are so many people in prison, for all sorts of sometimes relatively minor offences that could be remedied by other kinds of interventions. As I said, the incarceration rate means that an entire segment of the population that could be in the labour force is artificially and temporarily eliminated from the statistics.

That does not have any dissuasive effect. The United States is not a society at peace with itself. People may feel safe, but they do not feel at peace. They close themselves off now in gated communities where they are isolated from society. This is not a well-integrated society at peace with itself. It is not even real safety, just the appearance of safety. This is what happens in a country that has increased the number of offences with minimum sentences. They have no dissuasive effect.

Fraud over $1 billion is pretty rare. Not only is it unusual, but when it happens, the sentences are for more than two years. A provision was included in Bill C-52, but it is just for show, to say that the Conservatives will be tougher. The reality is that whenever there is fraud over $1 million, judges take all the circumstances into account and pass sentences of more than two years. The Conservatives are flogging a dead horse here, but no one is fooled. It is just an insidious ideological campaign conducted around justice and how justice is perceived.

When we asked the Minister of Public Works to give us an example of a case of fraud over $1 million in which the sentence was for less than two years, he was unable to provide one because these cases do not exist.

In cases of fraud of this magnitude, the sentences are about six or seven years.

The Conservatives created the impression they are passing tougher laws, but it is just a public relations exercise. This may also have been a bill that was quickly cobbled together by the Conservative government in view of the disgust expressed by much of the public and the victims of the various fraudsters. There were Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones, of course, but also various other people in financial and business circles who have behaved badly over the last few years. I am thinking, for example, of the fiddling with the books at Nortel and at Enron in the United States. The government probably wanted to act in view of all the public pressure but did something that will not produce results. This bill is terribly makeshift.

They have also added aggravating circumstances. If you look at the court's decision in the Vincent Lacroix case, you will find that all the aggravating circumstances put in the bill by the government—for example, the psychological effects of fraud on the victims—were included in the reasons given by the judge, in the Vincent Lacroix case, to justify his sentence. If my memory serves me well, he was sentenced to 12 or 13 years.

Once again they are flogging a dead horse. They are trying to give the impression that they are making tougher laws to deal with economic crimes and white collar criminals. But in fact they are just codifying the existing decision-making process used by the courts.

Restitution orders are another example. It is quite logical to ask fraudsters to return the stolen money to victims when possible. However, these restitution orders already exist. They are expanded somewhat in the bill.

We can also question whether or not it would be feasible, in the case of Vincent Lacroix, Earl Jones and many others, to recover the money—given that nothing is being done about the means used by these fraudsters to make it disappear, either through financial schemes or tax havens. I will come back to that.

The prohibition restricting the activities of convicted offenders is interesting. But that, too, is an existing practice whose scope has been broadened.

When we take stock of what Bill C-52 has to offer, we find that there is nothing new in the bill and that the measures are often inferior to what we already have in our system.

I would like to mention the example of the minimum sentence of two years once again. If the current standard is six or seven years, are they giving judges and the courts a signal that sentences should be lower? That is exactly how this bill, if it is ever passed, could be interpreted by some judges.

So they missed the target. The Bloc is taking it to committee in order to broaden the debate on the real ways to fight economic crime. One of these ways is advocated by the legal profession and those who write about crime or legal matters and it is eliminating the granting of parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served.

Since the start of the week, the responses by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the Minister of Justice have intimated that this is a highly complex matter, when in fact, it is a matter of repealing two sections of the Criminal Code.

A decade ago, parole was not granted after one-sixth of a sentence had been served. This practice appeared over the course of the years. So, we could backtrack, given that it does not allow for criminals found guilty to be sentenced or to serve much of their prison term. So the matter of serving one-sixth of a sentence can easily be reversed by repealing the two sections that gave rise to this measure.

They do not get it. There is no logic in the responses by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the Minister of Justice. Why is the government delaying the implementation of this measure, which has the full support of all groups and which would be very easy to implement?

Today in question period, the leader of the Bloc Québécois wondered whether the Conservative government—and this brings me back to my introduction—did not want to use a perfectly logical, effective and fully supported measure, namely eliminating parole after one-sixth of a sentence has been served, in order to include other measures which are far less popular, effective and transparent.

We are used to having these little poison pills with the Conservative government in connection with perfectly valid measures that have the support of consensus and has been proposed often by the opposition. I would point out that the Bloc has been proposing eliminating parole after one-sixth of a sentence since 2007. This is not something we invented in response to the white collar crimes of recent months. It comes from in-depth study by the Bloc and its supporters over the years. This is what we fear, and our fears are based on experience.

One I remember, for example, is the bill that created a whole set of tax measures, into which the government had inserted a little, tiny clause that meant that funding could be denied for films or works that were considered not to be in the public interest. If I recall correctly, that was Bill C-10. No one had noticed it in this House, in spite of the work done by the Standing Committee on Finance. The Senate noticed it, and the government, rather than take responsibility for the problem and eliminate it, did its utmost to try to keep it. This is one example, but we have seen a number of others over the several sessions since this Conservative government has been in office.

Eliminating parole after one-sixth of sentence would be an extremely easy thing to do. We could include it in this bill. We could even, in the cases of Vincent Lacroix and Earl Jones, make sure that the two of them serve a healthy portion of their sentences rather than what will be the case as a result of this government’s inaction. In January 2011, Vincent Lacroix will be as free as a bird, or very nearly. I cite these two examples again because they are the best known in Quebec.

This bill does not include those elements. Another major element that has not been talked about and that the government does not want to talk about is the question of tax havens. I come back to what I said a moment ago. This means that people commit fraud and think they will be able to come out of it just fine, based not just on the fact that they will be released after one-sixth of their sentence, but also on the fact that as a result of all sorts of mechanisms that are allowed under the Canadian Income Tax Act, that money will be sitting in tax havens, safe from the Canadian tax authorities. The negligence of the Conservative government on this issue is blatant.

Two weeks ago, Statistics Canada revealed that, if I recall correctly, there is $146 billion owing from Canadian taxpayers. These are mainly very wealthy individuals. As we know, an ordinary taxpayer does not have the resources to pay the accountants and lawyers they need to make use of all these mechanisms. There are also companies, the banks among them. We know that the Canadian banks, in particular, use tax havens to a huge extent. This is money that is sitting in tax havens, as a result of negligence on the part of Liberal or Conservative governments. Eventually, when these fraud artists are released, they are going to be able to get the victims’ money back, safe from the Canadian justice system and Canadian tax authorities and, it has to be said, with the complicity of the Conservative government of Canada.

Here is one of the examples we gave this week. It had to do with signing an agreement to weaken the border between Panama and Canada. Everyone knows that Panama is a tax haven. It is notorious. We just signed an agreement to make it even easier to transfer money from Canada to Panama. That is completely counter to current policy directions espoused by responsible governments, such as the administrations of President Obama and President Sarkozy, who have condemned the situation and are seeking solutions. Not only are our government and our Minister of Finance not seeking solutions, they are creating new problems.

Here is another example in addition to the agreement with Panama. They are not doing anything about the tax agreement with Barbados. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they made much of the fact that Canada Steamship Lines, which belonged to the Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, who later became Prime Minister, used schemes allowed in Barbados to avoid paying taxes in Canada. Not only have they maintained the tax agreement with Barbados since coming to power, they have reversed a decision made in one of the budgets to prevent double deduction of interest in the case of foreign investment. We are moving backward instead of forward like almost all of the other G20 countries.

It is all smoke. We will study the bill in committee and come up with concrete solutions for the justice system, specifically with regard to the practice of serving only one-sixth of a sentence, and, more generally, for ways to curb the use of tax havens by fraudsters who shelter their assets from Canadian justice and tax law, and we will find ways to give the stolen money back to the victims. That is what the Bloc Québécois will do in committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will proceed in the same order in which my colleague presented his questions.

We will continue today with our government's justice program because this is a justice week. We will be starting with our latest edition, Bill C-52, the retribution on behalf of victims of white collar crime bill.

That bill will be followed by Bill C-42,, the conditional sentencing legislation; Bill C-46, the investigative powers legislation; Bill C-47, the technical assistance for law enforcement legislation; Bill C-43, legislation to strengthen Canada's corrections system; Bill C-31, modernizing criminal procedure legislation; and Bill C-19, the anti-terrorism act.

All of these bills are still at second reading, but members can see from the long list that we do have many pieces of legislation to debate and hopefully move through the legislative process.

We will continue with these law and order bills tomorrow and next week when we return from the weekend. As is the normal practice, we will give consideration to any bills that are reported back from committee as well.

On the issue of an allotted day, Wednesday, October 28 shall be the next allotted day.

We will then resume consideration of the government's judges legislation on Thursday following that opposition day.

As my hon. colleague from across the way mentioned, speaking of our justice agenda, I should add that I was extremely pleased to see that despite the Liberals' best efforts to try to gut the bill, it was passed in the other place. For those who are not aware, there were 30 Liberal senators in the other place at the time when they were voting on those amendments. All of them voted for the amendments that would have gutted that legislation. Fortunately, the Conservatives in the other place were sufficient in number to defeat those amendments and actually pass Bill C-25, the truth in sentencing legislation. It actually received royal assent earlier today.

I would like to thank my hon. colleagues, the Conservative senators, for all the good work they did in pushing that bill forward and for all the good work they are doing in pushing forward other legislation.

The House dealt with Bill S-4, the legislation to crack down on identity theft. It was passed and received royal assent as well today.

Retribution on Behalf of Victims of White Collar Crime Act

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to debate Bill C-52 , which is getting off to a bad start.

This bill was announced by the Minister of Justice on Monday morning. For the past few weeks we have been asking questions in the House. I hope that my colleagues opposite, who are always reading notes, will remember that the Bloc Québécois was already asking questions about this bill on June 15, 2007. It was announced with great fanfare everywhere in Canada but in the House of Commons.

On Monday, the bill was announced in Calgary by the minister, in Montreal by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and in an Ottawa hotel by the Minister of Justice. The only thing they did not do was distribute a copy of the bill to the journalists present. However, they explained what it was all about. They are giving this bill a poor start in life.

We would like to tell this House that we will be voting in favour of the bill. I hope that my Conservative colleagues will finally understand that we are voting for this bill not because we support their agenda but because we intend to study it in committee and make substantial amendments. I hope that is clear to our Conservative friends. They should not believe that this bill will be passed handily. We will be making improvements in committee.

The chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights told the House yesterday that all bills would be studied quickly in committee. I have good and bad news for him: the good news is that I hope he will be chair of the committee for a long time; the bad news is that we will take whatever time is necessary to study this bill thoroughly and, in particular, to add what we believe a bill should contain, that is, sufficient measures to fight, rein in or at least adequately punish these white collar criminals.

I am going to share a true story. A man from Quebec just pleaded guilty to charges of fraud, so we can talk about it. Vincent Lacroix defrauded 9,000 investors. It is true, so I can say it. I am not talking about Mr. Jones, who also defrauded a lot of people. I am talking about Mr. Lacroix, who scammed people out of more than $150 million.

The bill has good intentions, but does anyone believe that the $150 million Vincent Lacroix stole is still sitting in a Canadian bank account? I hope that nobody in the House is naive enough to believe that the money is still in Canada.

This bill has two big problems. If we want to go after white collar criminals, we have to go after tax havens. I will explain what tax havens are, because I have a feeling that my Conservative colleagues do not really get it.

Their government has supported tax havens, and even helped create them in the first place in countries like Panama, Jamaica, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands. Anyone in Canada can deposit a million dollars in an account anywhere—be it Jamaica, the Caymans or Panama—but the money must be declared. Interest earned on the money must be declared. Money and interest invested in other countries must be taxed in Canada. But some people conveniently forget that they have put money in accounts in other countries, and they conveniently forget to declare it. Consequently, those countries become tax havens.

What do people think white collar criminals do? We are taking on extremely smart criminals here. We have to be honest and tell it like it is. These criminals are brilliant. They plan their schemes carefully. They spend months, even years, planning their schemes.

What do they do? They cheat people and take their money.

Are they going to deposit $150 million in some off shore account overnight? No, instead they will deposit small amounts: $1 million, $500,000, $2 million, $700,000. They deposit money outside of Canada a little at a time and then forget about it. They also forget to pay back those who gave them the money to invest. So they are in fact stealing from and cheating people.

Until we eliminate tax havens, this bill is doomed to failure. It is not complicated; it is doomed to failure if this government does not understand and agree that tax havens must absolutely be eliminated in conjunction with this bill, because that is where the money goes.

I hope there is no one—least of all the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse—naive enough to believe that Vincent Lacroix's money is still in Canada. I hope nobody believes that, because if they do, they are out in left field.

There are two important points here. The first, which I already addressed, is that tax havens must be eliminated. We have already asked the minister about this. This is about criminal law. Some of us have practised criminal law. I did for 30 years. I can say for sure that during my entire career, I never saw anyone sentenced to less than two years for fraud involving over $1 million or $2 million. I have never seen that.

Mr. Burns from the Trois-Rivières area just pleaded guilty to fraud involving $4 million. He stole $4 million. Does anyone really believe that this man will be sent home to put his feet up and relax, as the members across the floor would have us believe? Please. The proof is that the organization that monitors Quebec's financial markets prosecuted Vincent Lacroix and managed to get a sentence of 12 years. That sentence was reviewed, re-examined and reduced by the court of appeal.

That is not the end of it. Mr. Lacroix was convicted and has just pleaded guilty to fraud in the amount of $150 million. Is it possible that he will be given a sentence of less than two years? What is he going to do? I will tell you what he is going to do. He has pleaded guilty and the judge has sentenced him to 12 or 13 years. If the one-sixth rule is not eliminated, he will be eligible for release after serving one-sixth of his sentence. That has been requested. Let us do the math: dear Mr. Lacroix will be eligible to get out of prison after one-sixth of his sentence, in a year and a half or two years. He will then be 50 years old. And what will he do then? He will get on a boat or a plane or a train or a subway, or get in a car, or all of them if necessary, to get as far away as possible and go to whatever tax haven he has put his money in. That is why speedy action must be taken.

And that is the problem with this bill. At present, it is not possible, because the government is going about it piecemeal, amending anything at all in the Criminal Code, and introducing things. I think the Minister of Justice neglected and forgot to look at his Criminal Code when he introduced this bill, because when we consider the victims, the court has to be sure, before sentencing, that the victims have been heard. That is in section 718 of the Criminal Code. Why is he putting this in the bill? It is not necessary, because it is already there. What point is there in putting it in again? It is just one more thing to complicate the Criminal Code, according to the judges.

We are saying that the one-sixth of sentence rule has to be eliminated, and that we have to tackle tax havens. This is urgent. It has to be done at the same time as this bill is supported, amended, changed and chopped up in committee. It all has to be done at the same time, and the parole system has to be eliminated.

The best one is what I heard in this House yesterday afternoon, when the Minister of Public Works and Government Services told this House that the Minister of Public Safety was currently looking at the parole system and did not want to go at it piecemeal, and rather wanted to make comprehensive changes. That is really laying it on a bit thick, since that is exactly what they are doing in the Criminal Code.

They are chopping it up and amending it. If it is not section 742, it is section 350. If it is not section 350, it is section 132. This government will amend anything anywhere, without making sure there is any logic behind it. That is what the judges are criticizing it for. It has been criticized by the Quebec bar and in argument in various court cases. Unfortunately, judges cannot speak and do not often speak. When they do, however, particularly retired judges, they say that this government has no vision.

Tough on crime: that means nothing. It means nothing when they do not take all the appropriate action.

This bill is like Bill C-42 yesterday. They are eliminating conditional sentences. Where will those people end up? Unfortunately, they will end up in the prisons of Quebec, the prisons of Ontario, the prisons paid for by provincial governments . The prisons in Quebec are overflowing right now. The same is true in Alberta, in Vancouver, and everywhere in Canada. They are thinking no further ahead than to respond to a supposedly immediate need.

It is really too bad, but this bill does not meet society's needs at the moment. This is something the Bloc has criticized and will continue to criticize. In addition, the bill could send the wrong message. Fraud in the amount of $2 million or more warrants a sentence of two years or more in prison. In other words, someone committing fraud in the amount of $1.5 million would deserve a six month prison sentence perhaps. That is what it says. It runs the risk of sending the wrong message and resulting in lesser sentences. At the moment, the average sentence for fraud of over $2 million is at least five years, and I checked out only the sentences in Quebec and some elsewhere in Canada. I did not look further afield. It is a minimum of five years. What have they done with this bill? We do not need this. The sentences already exist and they are longer than two years.

Other things must be dealt with. They have been telling the Bloc for a very long time that their tough on crime policy requires a series of measures that, in combination, will ensure that crime is fought properly. For example, a police squad has to be established. We have to stop thinking the RCMP is limited to catching drug dealers. It will have to become specialized. There will have to be special squads, which some of us call the accountants or auditors, that may consist of police officers. Some officers did not know the other side of this. In the past, there were police officers who knew about drugs. That is good and can continue, but special squads will have to be set up and the people in them will have to be able to read a balance sheet and follow a trail.

I have explained that to the Minister of Justice. I do not think he understood, so I will explain a little more to him. Does he think that the funds appearing on balance sheets exist? Those who commit fraud for huge sums do all sorts of things. They are really brilliant. They can have balance sheets say things that practically no one can understand. It takes special squads. The banking regulations must be tightened. Bank secrecy is all very well, but today, in our situation, the banks must cooperate with the police squad on the trail of white collar crime. The Income Tax Act must be amended.

In addition, I hear my colleagues opposite talking about confiscating assets. I heard the member from the Quebec City region, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, who sits on the Standing Committee on Justice, say on air yesterday that it will be possible to remove and seize assets belonging to white collar criminals. Is someone in this House dreaming? Do they think that white collar criminals bought themselves 44 houses, three castles and four boats? Oh, come on! They buy themselves a house and maybe a cottage, but all the money is in tax havens. Often, the house is not in their name but in the name of their brother or sister. How will it be proven that the house was purchased with assets or money from the fraud perpetrated by Vincent Lacroix? Good luck! That is what is happening now. So, this money has to be tracked and the special squads will be able to do it.

I was talking about tax havens, and they should certainly be eliminated. They are a great place for hiding money, stealing and committing fraud. We should also abolish the right to parole after one-sixth of the sentence has been served.

I would go even further. Although I was a criminal lawyer and defended people accused of serious crimes, I have always said and will continue to say in the House that parole should be earned. That should be included in the bill because people who do nothing, who just sit in prison and wait for a quarter or a sixth of their sentence to go by, are not doing anything to earn their release. They are just sitting and waiting in these schools for crime, which is what penitentiaries are. If they do nothing, they do not deserve parole. It has to be earned.

Programs have to be made available. If people do not participate in them, they should serve their full sentences. That is what we say and what I have been repeating in the House ever since I was elected in June 2004. Criminals must serve their sentences. We do not need minimum sentences. They do not solve anything. But criminals must serve their sentences. As things stand now, people sentenced to three years in prison do not even serve eight months.

Nothing can be done with people like that. They are sent to prison for three years and get out after eight months. They have learned nothing. That is the problem the Conservatives do not understand. If we want to deal seriously with crime, we have to deal seriously with the reason why criminals are able to get out most easily, and that is parole. We have to put an end to this system which allows people to be released after serving one-sixth of their sentence. They do not even serve a third of it. Conditional release has to be earned.

We think this bill should be studied in committee and the justice minister should appear before the committee. I already know what my first question will be for the minister. I hope he will be prepared and that someone on the other side will tell him. Has he ever seen sentences of less than two years handed out in cases of fraud over $1 million? If someone can answer that, I would like a response as soon as possible. This kind of fraud generally attracts sentences of six or seven years.

At this stage, I can say that the Bloc Québécois will be in favour of the bill. However, I would not want this to be misunderstood. I will say it one last time. It is not at all because we agree with the Conservatives’ tough on crime program. It is because we want to amend this bill to reflect what modern Quebec society wants.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

Mr. Auger, you talked about conditional sentences somewhat critically.

Mr. Lévesque, if I wrote this down correctly, you said that the gangsters do not get reintegrated into society after two-thirds or one-third of their sentence. That's a premise I would certainly agree with.

There is currently a bill before the House of Commons, Bill C-42. I don't know if either of you are familiar with it. It purports to end conditional sentences for a whole range of criminal activity that is currently eligible for a conditional sentence, colloquially often known as house arrest. Some of those offences are criminal harassment, kidnapping, human trafficking—which we just talked about—abduction, theft over $5,000, and arson. I'm sure you'll agree that many of those activities are ones that are pursued by organized criminals from time to time.

So I wonder whether either of you have any comment regarding this bill, if you've had a chance to study it; and if not, perhaps you might have some comment based on its purported purpose as I've just outlined to you.

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and other Serious Crimes Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for such kind words. It is a pleasure and a privilege for me to be working with this party on the government side. I hope to be here for a long time to see justice come about through legislation such as we are talking about here today.

I want to echo my appreciation of our Attorney General in the province of Manitoba, an NDP Attorney General who is very much on the same page with regard to our attempts to see that justice issues are dealt with as we are trying to do here today with Bill C-42.

I am pleased to talk about victims because I have dealt with, as I said before, thousands of victims who have been asking for changes so that they feel that justice is being done. I believe that Bill C-42 will help to address the concerns of our victims.

I will give an example of a couple of cases that were absolutely atrocious to the victims, which dealt with conditional sentences. We had a situation in the city of Winnipeg where a babysitter became enraged with a two-year-old child and did not have the ability to deal with this child. As a result, the babysitter decided to punish the child, took this small baby's hands, went to a pot of boiling water and inserted the baby's hands into this boiling water and inflicted severe burns on this child's hands.

This child will never, ever be the same. What did this offender receive as a sentence? It was an 18-month conditional sentence in the comfort of her home, watching her television, and the victims felt betrayed. They felt as if they had done nothing to help prevent this from happening to another child.

I side with the victims here who want to make sure that this is prevented, that no more children are harmed and that we as a society are doing the right thing in the interest and the administration of justice.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member's party for recently taking the step of suggesting that they plan to vote with us on the approval of Bill C-42. I understand the member has asked two questions. I am going to deal with the second question first which is about judges. I must say very clearly I have a tremendous amount of respect for judges across this country. I have personally testified in thousands of cases before our judges at different levels, at different courts, and I have the utmost faith in what our judges are attempting to do.

However, I must say very clearly that I personally have spoken with judges who have stated that they are also bound by the rules and they are not necessarily happy with the rules. They must always look at previous offences to make a determination in sentencing. They must look to the past. They must look at precedents. When I have spoken with these judges, they have said that sometimes they would like a new starting point. We intend to try to bring about the new starting point for those judges who really want to do the right thing with regard to sentencing and protecting the interests of the public.

It appears my time is almost up. Perhaps I will answer the second part of the member's question in the next round.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 718 of the code states:

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

(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;

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

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

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief. There are two basic philosophies that clash with one another regarding Bill C-42, and in a few moments I will have the opportunity to explain our philosophy here on this side of the House.

I have a question for my colleague. Has he ever argued cases in which conditional sentences have been requested?

I asked him earlier. Has he ever litigated such cases in his career?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has been a welcome addition to our Conservative government since her election in 2008. She has a policing background and is highly knowledgeable in that area, so she knows of what she speaks. She is absolutely correct. It is the victims of sexual crimes, especially children who have been lured out of their homes and sexually molested. Those are the cries to which that the Conservative government is listening. Those victims are contacting us.

When I was tabling and debating my luring bill in the House, which thankfully received unanimous support, victims groups from across Canada were contacting me and asking how quickly the bill could be passed.

There is another aspect to this. Bill C-42 includes human trafficking. No longer will conditional sentences and house arrest be available for those who traffic in human beings. I am shocked the NDP would oppose tougher sentences for human traffickers. The Bloc, most shockingly, actually voted against a private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Winnipeg, which would impose a mandatory minimum prison sentence of five years for those who traffic in children. The Bloc had the gall to vote against protecting the most vulnerable within our society, our precious children. Shame on them.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, he has his facts all wrong. I will quote from his testimony yesterday in the House where he suggested that crimes such as luring and other serious crimes, which are listed specifically in Bill C-42, would never draw conditional sentences. He said, “I would challenge him”, referring to me, “to come up with some data that shows that those are the sentences that judges are giving conditional sentences on. I highly doubt it”. He should be doubting it now.

Then he goes on to say, “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”. That is exactly what the bill does. He obviously has not read the bill. There is a long list of serious offences that are outlined in the bill for which house arrest and conditional sentence will no longer be available.

The member claims that his party supports making safer and more secure communities in Canada. In fact, the NDP record does not support that statement. When we look at the NDP's record in the House, consistently those members have voted against our criminal justice reforms that have one focus, and that is to make our communities and our neighbourhoods safer for Canadians.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to commend the member for his work at the justice committee. He and I both serve on that committee and I have enjoyed his input. We often do not agree on the issues facing Canadians, but I do know he comes there with a wealth of knowledge, being himself a lawyer.

Bill C-42 very clearly is targeted toward serious crimes. There is a general consensus in Canadian society that these kinds of crimes should not call for conditional sentences, time in the safety of one's home.

As members know, I referred to specific cases. He obviously was not listening.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for this additional opportunity to speak to Bill C-42. When I began my remarks yesterday, I was explaining that this bill will eliminate conditional sentences for all serious criminal offences, not just those that result in serious personal injury.

Presently, the courts are able to sentence offenders to a period of confinement, but allow that sentence to be served at home and in the community. I want to be very clear about this. In some cases where minor offences are involved, conditional sentences might be appropriate to allow the offender to reflect on his actions and rehabilitate himself. However, in most cases, conditional sentences or house arrests, as they are often referred to, are quite inappropriate.

The sad fact is that under the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, there are many very serious offences for which house arrest still remains available as a sentencing option.

Let me give some examples. It will shock Canadians that these kinds offences can still draw a sentence served in the comfort of one's home. They include: criminal harassment; sexual assault; kidnapping; human trafficking, including the trafficking of young children; theft over $5,000; breaking and entering with intent; arson for a fraudulent purpose; and of course luring a child.

I want to briefly touch on that last one: luring a child. Yesterday, I talked about arson. An arsonist could burn down a family's home. The family would not be able to go back for many months if ever at all. The arsonist could return to his home and sit in front of his big screen TV.

Today, I would like to talk about the luring offence. Let me explain what that is. The sexual luring of children is when a sexual predator goes on the Internet and establishes contact with a young child. That child may come from a challenged home. That child may be lonely or have other challenges in his or her life.

The predator starts communicating with that child and develops a level of trust with that child. Of course, the predator does not tell the child how old he is. He communicates that he is perhaps 13 or 14 years of age, so the child has no way of knowing that he or she is actually dealing with an adult. As this conversation continues, it becomes sexual in nature and eventually that child is lured out of the home and exploited sexually.

That is something that Canadians clearly understand should not draw a house arrest type of sentence. I had the opportunity in the previous Parliament to introduce a private member's bill, which doubled the maximum sentence that could be levied against someone who attempted to lure children over the Internet for sexual purposes from five to 10 years. That bill was initially opposed by the Bloc, but thankfully the rest of the House did support it. It went to committee and we eventually did get unanimous support for the bill.

The reason the bill was so necessary is that when this offence was compared to other offences in the Criminal Code at that time, the maximum sentence was five years, yet one could steal a neighbour's cow and be liable to a maximum sentence of 10 years. One could defraud a person of more than $5,000 and be sentenced to 10 years in jail. Yet, if one lured a vulnerable child over the Internet, the maximum one could get was five years in prison. Fortunately, the House did deem that bill to be worthy of support. It did pass and it is now the law of Canada.

Should these child molesters who use the Internet to lure children qualify to serve their sentences in the comforts of their home? Canadians would be shocked to hear that they still do at this time. More shockingly, the NDP still supports house arrest for these kinds of serious crimes. In fact, yesterday I had a dialogue in the House with the member for Vancouver Kingsway, who comes from my area of the country. It is an area that has had serious drug-related and violent crime problems.

He should know the challenges that we face trying to get a handle on serious crime. Yet, he suggested that crimes such as luring children over the Internet would not attract a conditional sentence, in other words, a sentence served in the comforts of one's home. In fact, he challenged me specifically to provided him with some cases. That is what I have done.

I want to point out to him a number of cases that have occurred since 2002. The first one is Regina v. Folino. This was a case of luring a child over the Internet. The result was house arrest of 18 months. In other words, the person served the sentence in the comfort of his home.

In Regina v. Pritchard, a 19-year-old man lured a girl he knew to be 13 years of age. What did he get? He got two years less a day to be served in the community, house arrest. In Regina v. Burke, a teacher, who lured a boy over the Internet, received a house arrest sentence and that was in 2007.

Another one was an Edmonton father who got a conditional sentence for Internet luring, Regina v. MacIntyre. That was in June of 2009. An Antigonish man received a conditional sentence for Internet luring. That was this year.

It is true that there are serious crimes that are still qualifying for house arrest and it is something that shocks Canadians. Bill C-42 would eliminate the use of house arrest for virtually all serious crimes, including those I specifically mentioned.

That is what Canadians have asked us to do and our Conservative government is listening and acting. What is more, we are finishing the job that the Liberals and the NDP refused to allow us to do during the previous Parliament. Let me explain.

As I mentioned yesterday, during the 39th Parliament our government tabled a bill which would have eliminated house arrest for all serious crimes, as we have done under Bill C-42. Sadly, the Liberal, NDP and Bloc members of the House gutted the bill and removed serious crimes, such as kidnapping, arson, sexual assault and the luring of children for sexual purposes. Shame on them. That is why this bill is before us again.

I am relieved to see that the Liberal Party has finally indicated that it may support the bill this time around. However, my question to Liberal members is this. What miraculous conversion did they undergo between the last Parliament and this one to finally understand that serious crime deserves serious time in jail? Something happened along the way. They certainly did not get it a year and a half ago.

Crimes such as kidnapping, arson, robbery and luring children, although not always involving direct physical injury, usually result in serious trauma for the victim and often change the victim's life forever. Why should these crimes not be punished with time in jail? Canadians are asking that very question.

These are crimes which very clearly should not qualify for a sentence to be served at home. Yet, the NDP and Bloc continue to fight our efforts to protect Canadians and to denounce criminal conduct appropriately. The opposition parties truly are soft on crime. They try to deny it in the House. They pretend that they are standing up for Canadians, but when we put them to the test, they fail it miserably. Canadians, rightfully, are angry with such a state of affairs.

Need I remind the opposition parties of the extent of the fraud cases reported in the media recently? These are some of Canada's largest financial frauds. They have occurred in Quebec, they have occurred in Alberta recently, and they have occurred in British Columbia. They have occurred in virtually every province of this great country of ours and they have been perpetrated against some of the most vulnerable citizens, especially our seniors.

These are swindlers who know exactly who they are swindling and yet under the current law they could very well be sentenced to, guess what, a time out at home. That is what the NDP is asking for. That is what the Bloc is still asking for.

Bill C-42 would change that. It is time for change. If the opposition parties do not want to help us protect Canadians, they should get out of the way and let us get the job done.

The long and short of it is this. Bill C-42 does exactly what victims across the country have been demanding. It ensures that serious crimes, such as serious fraud, robbery, kidnapping, sexual assault, arson and the sexual luring of children, receive real jail sentences, not time outs at home. No more serious criminals serving their sentences in the comfort of their homes, in front of their big screen TVs and computer sets. If they do serious crime, they will do serious time, not at home but in jail.

Our government is listening to Canadians and we are acting accordingly. I urge my colleagues in the House to put aside the partisanship, put aside the rancour, put aside these ideological straightjackets that confine them to taking positions that are against the interests of Canadians, to do what is right and take notice of some of the challenges we face in our criminal justice system.

Being from the west coast, I know very well some of the recent challenges we have had with violent crime and drug related crime. I want to point out that Bill C-42 will actually also remove conditional sentences for the most serious drug trafficking crimes. Why should a convicted drug dealer, who in most cases is a repeat offender and represents a danger to our communities, serve his or her sentence in the comfort of home? Often that home has been purchased from the proceeds of crime. That is even more shocking.

I encourage my colleagues to put aside the partisanship and give the bill unanimous support in order to speed its passage. I can assure the House that as chair of the justice committee, I will do my part to assure swift passage of this very important bill.

The House resumed from October 20 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.

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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--

[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.

[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.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)