Debates of May 29th, 2006

Criminal Code

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to my friend's question is obviously yes. Bill C-9 does target that part of the current act that allows a judge to impose a conditional sentence on someone who otherwise would have been sentenced to prison. This in no way eliminates the responsibility to serve the prison sentence if the person does not abide by the conditions that the judge imposes.

Let us take the example of the young man the member mentioned. If he did not follow the judge's order that he repay the people he had wronged, he would be arrested and his punishment would be more severe. Since he had not complied with the terms of his conditional sentence, he would be obliged to serve his full prison term.

Clearly, then, Bill C-9 would prevent the judge from having that freedom.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas this question:

When he talks about the kind of society that the government wants to create, is he talking only about American justice and American society? I would like him to explain, if he can, why he does not consider this way of changing society as worthwhile. Why would it not necessarily be worthwhile to change society when we greatly admire the Americans in a number of areas?

I would like the hon. member to tell us why we should not move toward American-style justice.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Brome—Mississquoi for his question. I recognize his interest in social justice. I know that he works very hard in his riding in that regard.

What we have here is a dynamic where law and order are advocated. Certainly, we must have laws and also order, but they must be in the context of and have a specific objective for society. That is where I see the potential for a gap or a significant breakdown. This approach to the law leads us away from social justice.

A sense of justice contains elements of sharing, support and acknowledgement of others, of where they are in their life's journey and their actual place in society. My colleague is quite justified in making a comparison to what is happening in the United States. What is happening there is not comparable. The crime rate is much higher. In addition, these types of measures do not give the results expected.

When we examine the changes in our own country—prior to 1996, and over the last ten years, when the possibility of conditional sentences has meant that 55,000 fewer offenders have gone to prison—we see that the rate of recidivism has decreased by 13%.

This is major and my colleague is quite right in putting his question in that way.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my eminent colleague from Chambly—Borduas for agreeing to split his time with me for speaking on this very important bill.

Yes, this bill is important, but it would be frightening if it were passed. This act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) gives us a glimpse of the true face of this government. Since the election on January 23, all sorts of accusations have been made about the government’s propensity for modeling its policies on those of George W. Bush. My colleague from Brome—Missisquoi brought this up a few moments ago. This is disturbing.

The true face of the Conservatives will become increasingly clear, and not only in justice matters. They are moving increasingly to the right, and they are copying the policies of George W. Bush. I know this is not necessarily being received with pleasure, but that is precisely what this sort of bill is doing. This is happening not only in justice, but also in the environment, where the example is quite convincing indeed. They cannot say that scrapping the Kyoto protocol was a “made in Canada” policy when Quebec, the other provinces and even previous governments have always made the environment a priority, even if they did not always do so effectively. At least we supported the Kyoto protocol, we submitted a plan. The Conservatives are in the process of setting all of this aside. It is the same thing with employment insurance. I could go down the list, but I prefer to spend my time talking about Bill C-9.

The people of Quebec are increasingly worried about the values being promoted by this government. In the present case, these values are modeled on those of the United States, as I have said. In the United States, they have built prisons, they have increased the severity as well as the length of sentences. Is the crime rate lower in the United States than in Canada? The answer is no. My colleague from Chambly—Borduas gave an eloquent demonstration of that just now.

Our criminologists, who are as good as those of other countries, have long agreed that harsher sentences do not reduce the number of offences. In Bill C-9, the approach of the Minister of Justice is illogical because it is not aiming at the right target. Here is what we could have done to be constructive and help lower the crime rate in this country: the government should have corrected the quasi-automatic nature of parole. All releases should be tied to merit, instead of taking place virtually automatically once the criminal has served one sixth of the sentence. I do not understand why the government has not considered this issue, instead of imposing on judges the sentences they have to give.

Instead of that, the minister preferred to restrict judges' discretionary powers. Thanks to Bill C-9, judges will no longer be able, in nearly all circumstances, to allow offenders to carry out their sentences in the community—a practice that has existed since 1996—even when they have committed a minor offence involving no violence and accompanied by mitigating circumstances. It can happen, even though all crimes must be punished. There must be agreement on this. No one is saying that what happens is not serious.

We can count on our judges, I believe. No doubt we can find examples of decisions that were perhaps not the best or the most convincing, but, generally speaking, we must trust in our judges and our legal system. It has served us very well, we have to admit, particularly if we compare it with that of our neighbours to the south. A distinction must be made between a dangerous repeat offender and a first time offender.

It has been said in this House that a judge had the responsibility of examining the evidence adduced and deciding, based on the circumstances, whether an individual could serve his sentence in the community. This does not mean that the person is released, returns home and continues to offend. The criteria are very strict. A person who reoffends or fails to meet the conditions very often receives a much harsher sentence than they would have had had they not been given a conditional sentence.

The minister decided to back up ten years, when conditional sentences did not exist. The Bloc Québécois supported the establishment of such sentences in 1996 because it felt that every crime is different and must be evaluated accordingly. The government has therefore decided to take away judges' prerogative of evaluating the cases according to the conditions and circumstances surrounding them. A number of criteria come into play in the determination of a sentence, such as the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender. With Bill C-9, the government withdraws this discretionary power, which must be available to a judge throughout a case.

Conditional sentences are part of a well accepted model of justice in Quebec and in the other provinces in general. It is based on a process customized to each case. This is particularly true in Quebec. Here in the House we had a big battle in connection with the Young Offenders Act. At that time, the Liberals let themselves be pushed towards the right by the Reform Party in its bid for increasingly tough legislation. At the very moment when this tougher law was being imposed in Quebec, however, the rate of rehabilitation among young offenders was at 82%. This way of doing things, this toughened approach, was never understood in Quebec, when the approach to follow was in a way to open wide the doors to the rehabilitation of young offenders.

The government wants to take away the possibility of giving an individual a sentence to be served in the community if this person does not represent a threat to the safety of the public. That is what Bill C-9 does. We are talking about prison sentences of less than two years, are we not? If we introduced conditional sentences, it is because we believe in rehabilitation, as I said earlier, and restorative justice.

The Minister of Justice chose the approach of imprisonment at all costs and repression. We heard this earlier from the very mouth of a Conservative member, who was talking about law and order. Obviously, we are not against law and order, but at all costs and the way in which they want to impose it on us, it is not the right approach. That is the priority of this government concerning rehabilitation. It is not the priority of either Quebec or the other provinces. This law and order must not be achieved to the detriment of the necessary rehabilitation. Have we forgotten that the prisons are schools of crime? That has been said here many times. A first time offender who goes to prison has every chance, or rather mischance, of ending up with someone who can teach them a great deal about how to improve their criminal potential. This is obviously not what is desired when we talk about rehabilitation.

Do the government members really think that building bigger prisons and filling them even fuller are the ultimate solutions for dealing with crime? The example of the U.S.—that was also mentioned—however, is very conclusive in this regard.

The direct impact of Bill C-9 will be an increase in the number of inmates in the prisons of Quebec and the provinces housing offenders serving sentences of two years less a day. These prisons are already full. Some are overcrowded. This will allow the Conservative government to keep another promise, that of building new prisons perhaps. I do not think this is a good move for rehabilitation and I do not think this is the type of promise the public was expecting. The Department of Justice itself estimates there will be an additional 5,000 prisoners, offenders who normally would have received community sentences and who will now be sent to prison.

Financially speaking, I am not sure they have truly looked at the cost of implementing Bill C-9. The current average annual cost per inmate in a provincial prison is more than $50,000. That is the cost per year. The average annual cost for an offender serving a sentence in the community is less than $2,000. That is a big difference. The government jumped into drafting this bill without even comparing or assessing the financial burden it will have on Quebec and the provinces. And the Conservative government brags about saving taxpayers' money. But no money was saved when it drafted this bill.

The Bloc Québécois could have supported a bill that would have prevented the use of conditional sentences for the most violent crimes that are not excluded by the current legislation. Victims deserve justice, but very few of these crimes are not covered by the current legislation. The Criminal Code could have been amended; that approach could have been considered.

I will close by saying that we are asking the government to take action with respect to parole. We support the creation of a victim's ombudsman office that could react to and counterbalance the powerful National Parole Board and Correctional Service Canada. The priority should be to force these agencies to take the victims into account. Bill C-9 is a rather repressive measure and an ineffective one. We will vote against it.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I personally worked for many years in volunteer organizations and in the health care system, where I came in contact with young offenders. The residential facilities were in fact operated by health and social services. I was in a position to observe that when effort was invested in rehabilitating those young people, the success rate was nearly 88%, as the member for Richmond—Arthabaska was just saying.

I was in close contact with those young people. I went to visit the residential facilities and I saw how young people were treated. I imagined that if those young people had been 18 years old or more and had ended up in prison on their first offence, as the Conservative government is now proposing, they would have been completely traumatized. These were of course young people in difficulty who had committed significant acts, acts that could be characterized as criminal. Most of them, however, were on their first offence. Those young people would have been completely lost to society.

On an annual basis, it would have cost us over $50,000 to put those young people in prison, and for how many years? We have to count the number of years. If those young people are not rehabilitated, they may well, in fact, get out of prison and go back in, in other words, spend their lives going through that revolving door, and that amounts to much more than $50,000.

It is extremely important to invest in rehabilitating those young people. The member spoke about this, and I would like to direct my question for him to what he said. What kind of society do we want to live in? Do we not see a dichotomy here? Once again, visions of the justice system in Quebec and Canada are extremely different, so different that our society, our society as Quebeckers, is being placed at risk.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question. I would add that this type of bill also presents a conservative view. A bill is usually tabled in order to correct a situation. As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois would have agreed in order to correct certain shortcomings in the existing legislation. Then again, why fix something that is not broken? As I said, we could cite many examples in which judgments were not terribly relevant or were ineffectual, which of course, can happen in society. However, we must look at the situation as a whole.

As my hon. colleague just said, in Quebec we have developed tremendous expertise in the area of rehabilitating young offenders. Why should we send them to a school for crime? What is the idea behind Bill C-9? It is no more than a populist notion to please certain people who say that if young offenders commit crimes, they have to pay their debt to society.

We agree that offenders must pay their debt to society. However, we have found a way that works for us, one that focuses on rehabilitation. This method has been successful. If it had not been so successful, I would agree that new legislation should be brought in to fix the situation and we would support it. However, the exact opposite is true. Judges have ample latitude to impose a conditional sentence, depending on the circumstances, if that proves to be the best solution.

Under this bill, their hands would be tied and that would be it: from now on, everyone would automatically go to prison, in other words, to the school for criminals. This is a bad idea.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for sharing with us the enlightened approach being used in Quebec. We, in the rest of Canada, seem to forget that sometimes that is a very progressive way of viewing young people, in particular, who get involved with crime.

I am concerned with the government's cookie-cutter approach which it has proposed with this change. One thing people do not seem to take into account is if a young person winds up before the courts. The working poor or the working families who cannot afford the $1,200, $1,500 or even $2,000 a day for a lawyer may face the same kind of situation that the young blacks do in the U.S. Two-thirds of the people who are in prisons there are of colour. Of that number, it is figured that almost three-quarters of them may be totally innocent of the crime of which they have been charged and convicted.

I am very fearful, and I would suspect the member opposite would share this concern, that we are heading down an Americanization road with our system where people want quick solutions to very serious situations.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his question and his very relevant comment.

His is the same concern expressed by members of the legal community in Quebec. I should add that Quebec also has another interesting feature: legal aid. People who are entangled in the justice system, whether they have committed offences or are charged with offences, but who do not have the means to defend themselves in court, can take advantage of legal aid. As in all other things, nothing is perfect, but at least we have a system in place that enables people without means to defend themselves in court.

Quebec is setting a good example. Quebec is also setting an example in terms of rehabilitation, which keeps people out of prison rather than sending them there to learn how to commit more crimes, which is what happens when people are sent to jail systematically.

The government's plan is very troubling. I share my colleague's opinion on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have spoken in this House, and I would like to take the opportunity to thank the people of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for placing their trust in me on January 23. They are proud to see that we have kept our promises to date.

I would like to say a special thank-you to my wife Julie and my four children—David, Guillaume, Anne-Gabrielle and Élisabeth—and to my father, my brother and my two sisters for their support. I also want to acknowledge the unwavering loyalty of my team of volunteers and the support of the Conservative Party of Canada Association for the riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

To close this aside, I would like to congratulate the Quebec Remparts on winning the Memorial Cup. It was a long time coming.

I am honoured to be able to speak at second reading about Bill C-9, which aims to modify conditional sentencing.

Before I speak about the bill and its implications, I would like to remind this House that a conditional sentence can be ordered only if certain conditions are met.

First, there must be no minimum term of imprisonment for the offence the offender is convicted of. As well, the offender must be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than two years, and the court must be satisfied that allowing the offender to serve the sentence in the community will not endanger the community and is consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing set out in sections 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

These sections stipulate that a sentence must 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.

It is also useful to understand the intention of the legislator by looking back at the information document accompanying Bill C-41 in 1994. This bill is the one that created conditional sentences in our Criminal Code. According to it, the addition of this new sentence meant that offenders who had committed less serious offences and who otherwise would have been incarcerated could, under strict control, serve their sentences in the community.

Reducing the number of offenders in prison for minor offences protects the public by isolating from society those who have committed more serious offences and taking, for those whose offences are less serious, effective alternative measures in the community.

This government is of the opinion that conditional sentencing has a place in certain instances, but it is also convinced that the aim and fundamental principles of sentencing are violated when the accused is given a conditional sentence for a serious crime in which there are no exceptional mitigating circumstances.

Therefore, in the latest general election, the new Conservative Party promised to eliminate conditional sentencing in the case of serious crimes requiring greater denunciation and dissuasion.

The underlying principle in sentencing being proportionality, sentences for serious crimes must henceforth “reflect the gravity of the offence” and the “degree of responsibility of the offender”. That is exactly what Bill C-9 proposes to do. To this end, it would amend section 742.1 of the Criminal Code so that indictable offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more cannot be eligible for a conditional sentence. This would cover not only offences in the Criminal Code, but also those in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

This bill will target certain offences such as driving while impaired causing death or serious injury—a scourge in Quebec—dangerous driving causing death or serious injury—another scourge—criminal negligence causing death or serious injury, sexual assault prosecuted by way of indictment—a problem—aggravated sexual assault, assault with a weapon causing bodily harm, and manslaughter.

The bill will also target serious drug-related offences punishable by a sentence of 10 years or more and prosecuted by way of indictment. As we can see, implementing this threshold will target the offences in the government's electoral program. This threshold will also prohibit the use of conditional sentences for serious property offences and justice related offences. For example, persons found guilty of corruption or of arson could no longer serve their sentence in the community.

The true purpose of the bill is to correct a persistent anomaly. Conditional sentencing was not introduced in the Criminal Code in order to allow offenders charged with serious crimes to serve their sentence with their feet up at home. That is not what the legislation was made for. Such situations are not rare. They threaten our Canadian values, put the community at risk and discredit faith in justice.

This bill could also have repercussions on our correctional institutions. Some offenders currently given conditional sentences would be sent to prison if Bill C-9 became law. It is important to note that only a third of offences currently eligible for conditional sentencing will be effected by this reform and those are offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more and prosecuted by way of indictment. As far as the number of convictions are concerned, we estimate that roughly 5,164 of the 15,493 conditional sentences in the 2003-04 fiscal year would be affected by Bill C-9.

Another important consideration is the prosecution procedure. The proposed amendment will have an impact only on those offences prosecuted by way of indictment. As we know, there are many offences which can be prosecuted either by indictment or by summary conviction. Crown attorneys and police officers will decide how they wish to prosecute a case depending on the circumstances under which the offence was committed. Furthermore, this reform will not prohibit the courts from utilizing other types of sentences. For example, they will be able to impose a suspended sentence or a sentence accompanied by a probation order in the case of offences for which a conditional sentence of imprisonment is prohibited, when they consider such an option warranted by the circumstances.

This will also impact on the aboriginal communities. Aboriginal people are overrepresented in our correctional institutions, but we often forget that they are also overrepresented among victims. The 1999 General Social Survey entitled “Canada’s Native People”, from the series of Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics profiles, shows that aboriginal people are three times more likely to be victimized than non-aboriginal people, as well as three times more likely to be victims of spousal abuse. It is for the protection of victims and our communities that this bill proposes to modify the conditional sentencing system.

There is one other consideration. That is the impact of this bill on the provinces and territories. We will be working together with our partners to ensure that the necessary adjustments can be smoothly put into place. As I explained earlier, if Bill C-9 were to become law, only one segment of those who today are receiving a conditional sentence of imprisonment would be sent to jail.

In our fields of jurisdiction, we will be working with the Federal Prosecution Service, the Correctional Service of Canada and legal aid to ensure that our measures are successful.

The impact on the federal government will depend on the number of accused who are given an unconditional as opposed to a conditional sentence. We will be monitoring that impact and, if necessary, we will take it into account in any future initiatives to combat crime.

This bill reflects the intention of this government to go back to the source and prohibit the use of conditional sentencing for serious offences. This government is trying to protect victims and communities, not dangerous offenders. Only a prohibition, as expressed in this bill, will enable us to achieve that goal. The appropriate use of conditional sentencing will ensure that our Canadian values are protected and strengthen the integrity of and confidence in our criminal justice system.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understood quite well the speech by my learned colleague on the other side of the House. But he talks at the same time of serious crimes and sentences of less than two years. He should know that sentences of less than two years are handed out for minor crimes and that they are served in prisons in Quebec and in other provinces. Who will build these prisons when more room is needed? You stated that 15,000 additional people would be incarcerated. Where will we put these people if we have no prisons? Will you build them? Will you maintain them and pay the staff? If it costs $50,000 per inmate and we multiply that by 15,000, I think you will be running up quite a bill. However, I believe that you will pass that bill on to each province. That is the first thing.

We must consider something else that is important in all of this. People will think that they have a lot of money to do this. They have so much money. But fighting crime does not go together with poverty. Eliminating poverty and helping the poor would reduce slightly the number of people who go to jail, because they want to incarcerate people serving sentences of less than two years. That is another issue.

Then, if too much money is left over, they must think about older people who receive pensions and are living below the poverty line. If we can afford $50,000 per inmate, we should be able to give a little money to these older people who do not even receive minimum wage. We must help these people who live below the poverty line.

If you still have too much money, you should also help people losing their jobs. There will be more such people in two industries since the minister did not uphold the Canadian International Trade Tribunal decision to apply a surtax on bicycles for Raleigh and for Pro Cycle. They did not think of that. This is not serious. The lobbying that is going to take place elsewhere, at the retail level, is more important. However, in terms of workers and businesses, that is not important. By the way, both of those businesses are located in Quebec.

If that is not considered important and you still have too much money, there is also the program to help older workers, which we have been working on for years. We have been demanding such a program to help older workers, but there has been no progress in this area.

I think that the gentleman at the other end does not know where he is headed. The problem is that you have too much money, too large a surplus. You want to build prisons and put everyone in them. As I was saying earlier, before instituting such repression, we could start by tackling poverty, which is where the true problem lies.

Thus, here is my question. What do you intend to do to tackle poverty to ensure that these people do not end up in prison?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair and not directly to other members.

The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member expressed a full and frank opinion on poverty, but as far as I can tell, we are discussing Bill C-9. We will therefore redirect the question toward this bill.

First, there is nothing repressive about Bill C-9. The crown attorney simply has the choice of proceeding by indictment or by summary conviction. Any lawyer knows that there is a difference between an indictment and a summary conviction.

When an indictment is issued, it is because, given the circumstances, the crown attorney and the police feel that the crime is serious. If the crown attorney finds that he can proceed by summary conviction for the same offence because of the circumstances or because the police tell him that it is less serious, Bill C-9 will not apply. It is important to understand that this applies to indictments. Everything depends on the crown attorney, who, along with the police and the people around them, will have the power to determine whether to proceed by indictment or by summary conviction.

This is not repression. This procedure already exists. The difference is that the crown attorney will have to proceed differently for indictments and summary convictions.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention was a breath of fresh air after hearing some of the rhetoric on conditional sentencing that has been floating around the chamber today.

It is important that we get back to the basics in dealing with crime and punishment. The approach being taken by the Minister of Justice is the right one. It is the approach that people supported in the last election. Canadians want to make sure that people who do serious crimes do their time in jail, not under house arrest and not on conditional sentences where they walk our streets and reoffend. We want to make sure that we protect property values and protect people from injury so that we can continue to move ahead as a society and feel safe in our communities.

In Winnipeg not too far from my riding there has been a great increase in the number of property crimes. Car thefts are up exponentially. Various violent offences, injuries to seniors and personal injuries, whether they be from sex offences, break and enters or home invasions are on the rise.

Perhaps my hon. colleague would comment on the approach the Minister of Justice is taking with respect to conditional sentencing in order to ensure that criminals who reoffend and terrorize our communities will be kept off the street.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to draw the House's attention to the next question my colleague asked.

If we are going to use statistics to determine whether a law should be changed, we must go back more than two or three years. If we consider how the situation has evolved from one generation to the next, we see that, according to Statistics Canada, from 1970 to 2004, a period of 34 years, the overall crime rate has risen by 57%. The number of violent crimes has climbed by 100%. The number of homicides has dropped by 10%. The number of robberies has risen by 60%. The number of sexual assaults has jumped by 45%. The number of non-sexual assaults has grown by 112%.

These statistics cover all 10 provinces and the three territories. Clearly there is some urgency here. When we have people who should be incarcerated but who are sitting at home with their feet up waiting for their sentence, our system is not working. It cannot work because it undermines justice. If we want to regain the people's faith in the justice system, Bill C-9 must apply when serious crimes are committed so that delinquents will be kept in, not let go.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I have just heard is scandalous. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is telling us that the crime rate today is higher than in the past. He uses very old statistics and applies them to the present overall population and that of Quebec. To say that there was less crime 34 years ago is a complete misinterpretation of the facts. He is not comparing apples to apples, but tomatoes to apples. He is not comparing the same things. He is not comparing the number of inhabitants. He is not taking into consideration that, over the past 15 years, the crime rate has declined in Canada and even more so in Quebec.

The member has given us a course in law, but he has not taken a look at where he lives, that is Quebec. He has not studied the people with whom he lives. He does not live in the same society. We live in Quebec. We have made progress every year. I do not understand his attitude.

My question is the following. How can he sell his soul so quickly in the name of the Conservative agenda? That is what I think. This individual takes no heed of how Quebeckers around him live.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order because of the remarks just made by the member opposite.

We are studying a bill, not questions of religion. The member opposite knows very little of the region I live in. People put their trust in me as they did in him in his riding because we represent something too.

Our program has always been clear. It was a five point program and included Bills C-9 and C-10. At no point did we take the public by surprise.

The fact of seeking the law and respect for human life by imprisoning others, which is possible, does not mean selling one's soul to the right. Rather, it is a question of expressing a legal approach and ensuring that the Criminal Code, which we must review every five, seven, eight, nine or ten years, applies in certain places in a given manner, as required.

In this case, that is, a change in sentences, it is not difficult. The bill is simple. It involves indictment for a serious crime. Everything is relative. It is not a matter of excessive imprisonment. It involves only serious crimes.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. I hope to contribute some useful commentary.

This is a propaganda bill, nothing more, nothing less.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

That you are not used to at all.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government would like to believe, notwithstanding the propagandists on the other side, that Canada is being inundated with crime and therefore we need to take extraordinary measures to deal with this scourge on our society. The truth, however, is far removed from the propaganda. The propaganda says that crime is up. The truth is that crime is down. The propaganda says--

[Gary Goodyear]

Got any more verbs in that speech of yours?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

That is propaganda?

[Gary Goodyear]

Do you have the results from last week?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

The propaganda--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I cannot hear the hon. member for Scarborough--Guildwood because of the noise coming from, I have to say, largely the government side of the House. I would ask all members to allow the member for Scarborough--Guildwood to finish his speech in a way that we can all hear him.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that the propagandists are out in full force. They would do credit to the communist party.

The propaganda is that crime is up in Toronto, the community which I come from, and it is overwhelmed by criminal activity. In fact, by any and every standard of measurement, crime is declining in every category. That is the truth.

This is politics pure and simple. When truth and propaganda collide, truth is a casualty. Even when the so-called law and order crowd, and my friends opposite would identify with that, is confronted directly with statistics that show that in every category crime is down, that crowd lapses into the rope a dope nonsense that statistics lie, et cetera. It is really quite pathetic because the propagandists will not deal with the truth.

We have here Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment). The bar is set quite high here, unlike the propaganda. The propaganda says that Canada is having a crime wave and more criminals need to be doing hard time. If that is true, why does the bill only deal with offences prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more? If we are being inundated by a crime wave, surely we should be lowering that bar, not raising it.

This hardly speaks to a so-called crime wave. One, there has to be a conviction, something that the law and order crowd frequently forgets. Two, if convicted, there has to be an exposure to a sentence in excess of 10 years. Three, the crown has to elect to proceed by way of indictment.

This is a very high bar of offences. Because it is so high, there are therefore very few charges to which the bill could possibly apply. It is the old bait and switch technique. It would be seen to be basic if the government would at least put on the table the number of offences to which this particular amendment to the Criminal Code might apply.

The propaganda repeats ad nauseam that there is a crime wave, that it is out of control and something must be done. Members of the public become convinced because they are repeatedly told that there is a crime wave, that it is out of control and that something must be done. What is that something; what will rein in this catastrophic crime wave? Is it Bill C-9? Canada would be so much safer after the passage of Bill C-9.

Does anyone know the pool of persons who are to be prosecuted by way of indictment and are liable to imprisonment for a period of 10 years or more and would have received a conditional sentence? Does any representative of the government know what is the pool of individuals who would be exposed to Bill C-9? Does anyone have a number for this, or is it just more smoke and mirrors from the propaganda crowd?

The bill invites us to believe two things: one, that there is a crime wave going on in Canada; and two, that all of the judges have taken leave of their senses.

For the purposes of putting some facts into the debate, I will read section 718 of the Criminal Code. For the hon. members opposite who have probably never read section 718, these are the principles by which a judge imposes a sentence. It starts:

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;

I am reading slowly for members opposite. It goes on:

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

(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;

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

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

That is followed by subsection 718.1, which states that:

A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

That is followed by subsection 718.2 which states that a court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration certain facts that may increase or reduce any sentence imposed for any relevant, aggravating or mitigating circumstances and sets out what the aggravating circumstances might be such as:

(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders committed in similar circumstances;

(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;

(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and

Finally, it states:

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

To be able to support the bill, we really have to believe that the judges have taken leave of their sentences.

I know members opposite may have been bored with the reading of that but, nevertheless, it is always good to set some context for the review of the bill. Regardless of one's views on the bill, one would have to say that section 718 is quite a comprehensive set of sentencing guidelines.

The government wants us to believe that Canada's judges are not smart enough to have read section 718. Alternatively, if they have read section 718, they are not smart enough to apply it. I do not know what members think about Canada's judges, but not smart enough is not one of the things that comes readily to mind. Regardless of whether one is left wing, or right wing or no wing at all, not smart enough is simply not applicable.

At one point in their lives, these judges have graduated from university, sometimes with one degree, sometimes with two. They have graduated from a law school. They have gone to a bar admission court. They have put in at least 10 years' in the practice of law. Not smart? I do not think so. Therefore, the bill invites us to believe that a judge did not apply his or her mind to the section 718 principles and did not consider whether the sentence should be served inside or outside of a jail.

These judges, having listened to all the evidence, having listened to and read the pre-sentence report, having heard submissions from the Crown and defence, are, according the propagandists opposite, in a poorer position than others to apply a sentence.

If somehow members think we should sentence by what we read in tomorrow's newspapers, they are welcome to that belief. For me, I will be prepared to accept that Canada's judges have read section 718, have applied their minds to section 718 and have given serious consideration as to whether a sentence should be served inside a jail or outside.

I am satisfied that Canada's judges get it. All the bill accomplishes is a fettering of a discretion on a minimal number of cases to pander to a non-existent problem. The judges are smart, they do get it and there is no crime wave, in spite of the propaganda.

One might say “what's the harm”, that it is a small number of people, that judges can do what they want and that it really is no big deal. I would like to remind all members in this chamber that we have a justice system. It is a justice system, not a sentencing system. It requires the application of justice to the convicted person. It is not a cookie-cutter system. It requires thought, knowledge and sometimes real agony on the part of the judge.

We have heard the law of physics which says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. While law is not as precise as physics, the bill would set up some perverse equal and opposite reactions.

The first reaction is that probably more people will go to jail. For some, that is a wonderful consequence, at least until they get the bill. I heard one member say that it was $50,000 per year. I thought it was $100,000 per year. Regardless of whether it is $50,000 or $100,000 per year, an inmate does not take long to rack up quite a bill of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

For those who like to “hang 'em high and hang 'em longer”, this may be quite satisfying. To those who have to think about allocation of scarce resources, jailing people who could probably do their time outside jail just as well as they could inside jail can lead to the blowing of a budget quite rapidly.

The bill would scoop up people it never intended to scoop up. The welfare mom or dad convicted of fraud cannot be given a conditional sentence because it carries a penalty of over 10 years and because the Crown proceeded by way of indictment. We can all self-righteously say that he or she should be in jail, but who looks after the kids? Mom or dad are in jail at $100,000 a year plus the local children's aid society has to look after the kids. Not only is it expensive, but in all likelihood it will create our next generation of criminals.

Speaking of that, what increases recidivism? A spell in jail or a conditional sentence? Is there a greater likelihood of returning to crime after jail or after a conditional sentence where there is mandatory treatment, community service, house arrest, curfew and counselling? What is a better bet to prevent repeat offending? What about the unique offender populations? Does curfew and house arrest work better or does jail?

The bill is so crude and so poorly thought out. My colleague called it a legislative hammer where a legislative scalpel would do. When we bring in the propaganda of the ideology and we are committed, of course we go with a legislative hammer.

Instead of referring the bill to the justice committee at first reading so it could study it and Parliament could work collaboratively, the government wants to ram the bill through regardless of the facts. As Columbo might say, “Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts”. The government does not want to listen to the facts about the so-called crime wave. The government does not want to listen to the facts about sentencing. The government does not want to listen to the facts about recidivism. Certainly, the government does not want to listen to the facts about the unintended consequences of the bill.

It looks like a pattern and it probably is a pattern. The bill is typical of the government. It has no interest in the facts or in public policy. It is only interested in propaganda. As a propaganda bill, this is a very successful bill.