This bill is from the 40th Parliament, 3rd session, which ended in March 2011.
Rob Nicholson Conservative
In committee (House), as of May 6, 2010
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-16s:
Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK
moved that Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is 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.
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for opening the debate in a real fashion by saying that conditional sentences are an appropriate sentence in some cases. If we only looked at the newscasts, we would think that conditional sentences are not appropriate for anything and house arrest sentences are synonymous and free willy, people can just do whatever they want.
Could the member expand on his comment that conditional sentences are appropriate in certain cases and could he refer to the whole page, the menu, of conditions that a judge has at his or her disposal in section 742.3 that are not available to a judge in giving a probation order or in sentencing someone to incarceration? There is a menu of items that might be useful in terms of rehabilitation, reintegration, cost saving and so on that a judge might use especially subsection (2).
Could he expand on the types of crimes that have found conviction and should fall within the category section 742.3, specifically subsection (2), and all those conditions about going into a treatment program, a remedy that is not available through a probation order, abstaining from the consumption of alcohol or drugs, the very specific things to which this enactment was designed to be tailored.
We know from our tour of the country with the justice committee, that many of the people in our prisons suffer mental illness, or mental illness problems, addiction problems and other issues that could be better probably dealt with through treatment rather than incarceration.
Perhaps the member could expand on that list, but did not have enough time to go through it.
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Moncton for the good work he does on the justice committee and in the House generally.
As I indicated in my opening comments, conditional sentences are an appropriate disposition in many circumstances, but not all circumstances.
The government believes, and certainly I believe, that when it comes to serious and/or violent crimes and by default and by definition serious and violent criminals, that individuals convicted of those types of crimes should serve their time in appropriate detention and custodial facilities and not in the comfort of their own home.
However, the member raises a good question. All too often, when we talk about conditional sentences, we talk specifically about house arrest. However, he is quite right there are other conditional sentences that are available to the court for its consideration other than house arrest. Those can be considered in many circumstances.
I believe there are circumstances when they are not appropriate and that was the list I enunciated. Those upon passage of the bill will no longer be eligible for conditional sentence upon conviction when the bill becomes law.
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Speaker, we have had this system for nearly 15 years. Given the number of house arrests that have been handed down and would be replaced by prison sentences, surely there must be a way of accurately determining the number of additional prisoners the provincial prisons would have to absorb.
Can the member or the department provide us with this figure? How many prisoners does this represent? What additional costs will it represent for the provinces, which, as we know, house prisoners sentenced to less than two years?
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the former attorney general from the province of Quebec, for all of the good work he does on the justice committee and formerly on the public safety committee. I do not have those numbers on the tip of my tongue. If conditional sentences and house arrests become unavailable for a list of offences, and I listed a number of offences to which that would apply, then more individuals will end up in custody.
The Minister of Public Safety has been asked about this very recently and he has indicated that there will be more use of techniques, such as double bunking, to make the most appropriate and efficient use of the current correctional facilities. I do not know if that will be sufficient or if other expansion or techniques will have to be employed, but that misses the crucial element of this debate.
The debate is on whether a conditional sentence is an appropriate disposition for an individual who commits a serious property offence or an offence of violence. I, and I believe all members on this side of the House, would say that it is not.
A very good example is arson. If a person burns down my house, ought that individual be able to serve his or her sentence at home? I think most Canadians would answer that question in the negative. Confidence in the administration of justice requires that a conditional sentence not be available for that type of serious offence.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions.
First, as the previous member mentioned, there are thousands of cases of successful sentences like this. Could the member give us specific examples, not a list of conditions, of cases where this did not work?
Second, if the conditional sentences are not effective from a judge who knows all the conditions of a situation and what would be most effective to make a safe society, why do the figures show less repeat offences by people who are sentenced through conditional sentences than those who are sentenced to jail terms?
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is not my practice to talk about specific cases or offences. I will advise the hon. member and the House that chiefs of police tell us, with alarming frequency, about individuals who serve conditional sentences in the community. Not only are they in breach of those conditions to keep the peace, to be of good behaviour, to refrain from alcohol and non-prescriptions drugs, but they are also involved in Criminal Code activities. Specifically, they are property offences to make currency to further from whatever addiction they suffer.
There are many examples of individuals who have not only breached the terms of their conditions to keep the peace and abstain from substances, but have also become involved in Criminal Code activity. I think society needs to be protected from those individuals.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague from Edmonton—St. Albert for the good work he does at the justice committee. He is one of our very valued participants. He probes when he asks questions and he has been very helpful in bringing forward some of these justice issues to the table. I want to also thank him for his focus on victims and on protecting society.
He referred to the issue of confidence in the justice system. I would invite him to comment a little further on how confidence in the justice system erodes when serious criminals get to serve their time at home in front of their big screen TVs, their computers and all the luxuries they would normally enjoy at home.
Brent Rathgeber Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Speaker, my friend who very ably chairs the justice committee points out a deficiency in our current sentencing regime. Individuals who have been convicted of serious and sometimes multiple offences, whether they are property offences or offences of violence, are able to return to their own homes and serve their sentences in comfort with all the amenities of life, be it a big screen TV or their library and CD collection.
The constituents who I talk to, and the public generally, do not believe this is an appropriate disposition. They do not believe that individuals who have been convicted of serious offences ought to serve their sentence in the comfort of their home. In this job, where we are away from home so much, it is a treat to spend a couple of days uninterrupted in the comfort of our homes. I do not believe this is an appropriate penalty, or punishment or sentence for an individual who has been convicted.
My friend from Abbotsford also talked about victims. As he knows, the bill and the proposed amendments have the endorsement of Heidi Illingworth, the executive director of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, who said, “The current legislation has not sufficiently restricted access to conditional sentences for offenders—
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer
Order, please. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.
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.
Criminal CodeGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Andrew Scheer
Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Etobicoke North, tuberculosis; the hon. member for Richmond Hill, Afghanistan; and the hon. member for Yukon, the Arctic summit.
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member does good work on the justice committee and is generally not prone to hyperbole, but I did notice one thing in his comments on this bill which addresses the whole issue of conditional sentences and house arrest. He did mention that he believed that our government was not doing enough on crime prevention and suggested that virtually nothing in terms of additional resources had been put into that part of our budget.
I looked at the main estimates for 2008-09 and 2009-10. In 2009 there was about $39.5 million for crime prevention. In 2010 there was actually $64.5 million. That is an increase of $25 million, some 60% increase in funding for crime prevention across Canada.
I would ask my colleague on the justice committee whether he is prepared to temper his remarks somewhat in light of the clear proof in the main estimates that in fact our government is moving forward to address issues such as crime prevention.
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, I do want to temper my remarks because the member is the chair of my committee and I want to be recognized tomorrow morning and on Thursday morning. I do want to say that there is a big difference between putting something in a budget and showing that is has been spent. Also, just because it is put as a line item in a budget does not mean there is effect and does not mean that it is money being spent in the right place.
When I spoke about crime prevention, admittedly I had a short time to explain, I was talking about the provincial and local levels. I have a municipal background and I know that the member for Abbotsford does too. He knows that money spent locally on things like crime prevention are the best dollars spent. What I hear in my own community and other communities in New Brunswick is that there has not been a real surge in effective crime prevention activity. We have not been getting early enough intervention. We have not been getting the societal need to find other ways to treat criminal activity.
There is one thing on which he and I can agree, and it is not political whatsoever. I do not think the government is interested necessarily in spending social services money on crime prevention. I do not think it is interested in that; we will have a debate on that if we disagree. We are unified in trying to find new tools for police officers, prosecutors and judges to tackle organized crime and gang violence, and I thank him for his co-operation in that regard. It is something that cuts across all parties. It is good to be in a parliamentary and committee milieu where everybody is rowing in the same direction. I have only been here four years, but I am told that that is pretty rare.
I compliment the member on his stewardship on that good part of the discussion, and of course I disagree with him vehemently on the first aspect.