Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Very briefly, I won't rehash many points. Kudos to Sue Barnes for working with the other parties and getting some amendments that make some real sense.
I think what I objected to most of all about this bill from the outset, as a new member of Parliament and as a lawyer, which I don't feel I should apologize for—the member of Parliament, I don't know, but being a lawyer I don't apologize for—is that the judiciary appeared to be under attack in this bill. There was an animus that the system isn't working, they're too lenient, and therefore we're going to fix it with this bill. I found that offensive.
But I think what's important is that the government did not set out to completely eradicate conditional sentences, even though it may have led the public to believe that's what it was about to do. So if the goal was not to completely eradicate but only to tighten, I think these amendments do that.
Secondly, the overwhelming evidence of the witnesses here was that conditional sentences do work. They are appropriate in many instances. By limiting them, or refusing to allow them in the three instances in this amendment, the government has in fact set out and succeeded in its job of tightening the use of conditional sentences for serious offences, I'll call them. “Mission accomplished”, they might say, but it's also to keep in mind that this is a process. The application of conditional sentencing is something relatively new to the Criminal Code and the criminal justice system, and there is in this amendment and in the bill that was presented by the government, I think, an implicit bowing to public perception that they weren't working.
I might blame the media and I might blame the government for creating and heightening those perceptions, but the perception is there. As Myron Thompson would say if he were here, the people are always right, and the people feel that something needs to be done with respect to some conditional sentencing applications. This amendment does that.
We also have to remember, as responsible committee members, that several AGs in several provinces have been calling for the curtailing of conditional sentences in some applications, which is exactly what this amendment does.
Finally, it is about the victims. It is important to remember that a person given a conditional sentence is monitored, as the cold eye of society and the justice system is over him or her for a longer period of time than somebody who's merely thrown in prison.
I think Larry touched on it with respect to the north, but it can't be said enough that any sentencing regimes affect our aboriginal population disproportionately, so we must, as responsible members of Parliament, tread very carefully when we tighten and strengthen penalities that we know statistically affect deleteriously the aboriginal community.
So I am all for this amendment. Of course, Sue Barnes would kill me if I wasn't, but I'm also for it in my own heart.
Thank you.