Debates of May 29th, 2006

Criminal Code

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have some real concerns about the statistics in the member's presentation. It is easy to quote information and state data that might skew the information for the public. The latest national data showed that overall crime in 2004 dropped by 1%, but the murder rate jumped by 12% from the year before. We do not have to ask anybody in Toronto about that problem. It was particularly acute last summer when 52 people died as a result of gun violence.

I believe this is well thought out legislation with improvements to our sentencing laws that will ensure courts hand down meaningful sentences for firearms offences.

The member opposite made reference to house arrest. He said that conditional sentences were tougher than having to serve time in prison. I want him to realize that this proposal does not solve all justice problems in Canada, but it is a step in the right direction.

To clarify, I think the hon. member is stating that people would prefer to serve time in their homes, with luxuries such as watching their TVs and having privileges of freedom, rather than spending time in prison. He believes this is more reflective of the desires of Canadians rather than getting tough on crime.

On May 5 the Winnipeg Sun stated that this was the right message. He has said that it is the wrong message. The Ottawa Sun has stated “Hard line is the right idea”.

Could the member clarify his reference to the leniency and jail time versus house arrest?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can give my colleague the following very simple answer. My colleague has just provided the evidence that this is the wrong message. Yes, there may have been a rise in the number of homicides, but that is not what Bill C-9 is about. With all due respect for my colleague, Bill C-9 is about sentences of less than 10 years. Someone who is convicted of homicide is given life in prison, depending, of course, on whether it was manslaughter. In the situation we are addressing, Bill C-9 does not address that kind of crime. That is what I was saying.

I would also add that for nearly a decade, from 1996 to 2004, I had the opportunity to argue, and to become familiar with, a lot of cases, and I have seen my clients trying to deal with conditional sentences of imprisonment. I can tell my colleague that at present, someone who does not comply with each and every one of the conditions of his or her release or conditional sentence will be returned to prison and will serve the entire remainder of the sentence without possibility of parole. That is a considerable hardship.

I would therefore advise my colleague to be careful about some of the things being said. We have to look at the numbers. I would also say that conditional sentences of imprisonment are often very difficult to serve. Sometimes, I even told my clients to reject the Crown’s offer of a conditional sentence because they would be unable to comply with the conditions. Just try abiding by an order that you abstain from consuming alcohol at home—give me a call if it works. For example, I told one of my alcoholic clients who was being sent home under a conditional sentence with an order that he abstain from drinking that it would be preferable not to agree to it, and to serve his time.

What I said, and I will reiterate, is that we must continue to tailor sentences to the individual, and not switch into a repressive mode, which is what Bill C-9 is preparing to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-9, which has been referred to as the amendment to conditional sentencing. It is important to appreciate some of the historical background behind this and why attention has been paid to this form of sentencing.

The original provision for conditional sentencing is relatively new to our criminal justice system, being only a little over nine years old. At the time it was introduced, it was a clear attempt on the part of the government of the day to reduce our prison population so individuals were not incarcerated for crimes that could have been better dealt with through rehabilitation, expression of denunciation by the state and justice for the victims. This would justify the use of conditional sentences as opposed to incarceration.

Conditional sentencing was used fairly slowly for the first few years. By the end of 2004, conditional sentences were being used across the land approximately 15,500 times. That meant fewer people were being incarcerated. The provision of the section is such that it is only used, whether it is now or subsequent to the proposed amendment, when the judge decides that the person in all other circumstances will be sent to prison. In these circumstances it would be better, for the reasons I have already mentioned, for the person to remain in restricted custody, but outside of full incarceration.

It is important to appreciate what has happened. Particularly in the last few years we have read on the front pages of our newspapers or heard on the national news cases involving criminals who were convicted of serious, violent crimes but were given conditional sentences. I do not know how many times this has occurred nor does the government. Some cases received substantial media notoriety. When these were investigated, extraneous circumstances justified the use of conditional sentences. However, this flew in the face of the original intent of conditional sentences, which were for non-violent crimes, not those that resulted in serious injury to victims.

A consensus built within the legal community and the legislators in the House that this issue had to be revisited. We had to address the point of when it was appropriate to use conditional sentences. If there were cases when it was inappropriate to use conditional sentences, we had to see if amendments could made to the section that would prohibit judges from using them.

The former government brought forward a bill toward the end of the last Parliament that attempted to address the issue. It reflected, to some degree, some consensus that had been built by all four parties. It did not get to second reading and died after the election was called.

This bill has taken a significantly different and more punitive approach to the issue of conditional sentences. The most important part is to look at the provisions of the section. It basically states that conditional sentences would be unable to be used in cases of a crime that had maximum penalties of 10 years or more.

We have to appreciate as well the impact of the amendment. If it were to go through, and I am cautiously optimistic that it will not in its present form, all these sentences would be served in provincial jails, not in the federal system. One of the other provisions already in the section is that it is not used unless the sentence to be imposed is two years less a day. If it is two years less a day, the person would spend the time in a provincial jail. All the individuals sentenced under this would be individuals who would normally end up in our provincial jails.

It is quite a lengthy list of where it would be prohibited to use this section. Forty-two sections of the Criminal Code have maximum terms of 10 years or more so conditional sentences could no longer be used. The difficulty I and my party have with this is a number of these sections are for crimes that are not of a violent nature, where an individual victim would not be assaulted or injured in a minor or serious way. We would classify approximately 20 sections as property offences, some quite minor. We sometimes wonder why there is even the possibility that somebody would get 10 years or more for that kind of an offence.

The first on the list is property theft over $5,000. It does not take many pieces of electronic equipment stolen from a house or a retail store to amount to over $5,000. It could be a first offence, but a conditional sentence would not be considered for the individual.

I will go through them. We have cattle theft, theft or forgery of credit cards, unauthorized use of a computer, breaking and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, house breaking and possession of instruments, disguise with intent and possession of stolen property over $5,000, theft from mail, bringing into Canada property obtained by crime, false pretense of property over $5,000, obtained credit by false pretense, forgery, utter forged documents, fraud over $5,000 where a testamentary document is altered, false prospectus, personation with intent, wilful mischief over $5,000, wilful mischief of other property and arson for fraudulent purposes.

There are about 20 offences, all of them property crime. We question why some would even have a maximum penalty of 10 years. Nobody ever gets that kind of a penalty for those kinds of crimes, but they are all included in Bill C-9. The effect of the bill is to exclude anybody convicted of one of those offences from being treated by way of a conditional sentence.

When I saw the bill, my initial reaction was this. Our Crown attorneys will take a look at it and will immediately make deals with defence counsel. Of the 15,500 cases each year, somewhere around 5,300 to 5,400, or one-third, will be excluded. The statistics I am giving are from the Department of Justice. I am not making these up.

One thing that could happen is that crown attorneys would plea bargain deals with defence counsel and some criminals would still get through in other ways. The parliamentary secretary mentioned that one way would be to allow for suspended sentences. I do not see that as a good alternative to dealing with this type of crime.

With suspended sentences, a judge has no ability to put restrictions on the person convicted. The judge basically decides not to proceed with a conviction and no penalties but if the person commits another crime and comes back before the court the judge can sentence the individual. That is how suspended sentences work. It is not a good alternative in terms of rehabilitation or an expression of denunciation from the state. It is not a good alternative to conditional sentences for that kind of crime.

However, we will get some of them out. I am guessing that at least 1,000 or so a year will be taken care of by some other kind of plea bargain but that still leaves 4,000-plus cases.

When officials from the Department of Justice came to me for a briefing I asked them what it would cost and, more important, what it would cost the provinces because all these sentences would be served at the provincial level. It costs about $125 a day to keep somebody incarcerated in our provincial system. It varies from province to province but that is a mean average. If we were to do the math, the operational cost for each convict who goes into the system would be in the range of $200 million to $250 million per day. All provinces will need to build additional cells to provide sufficient capacity to handle these prisoners.

It was interesting to hear the Minister of Public Safety say publicly that the money has not been specifically earmarked but that it has been set aside in the budget. This reflects the Conservatives' lack of understanding of what they are really getting themselves into. That money will be more than used when we get to the next bill, Bill C-10, on mandatory minimum sentences.

The Minister of Public Safety figures that the government will need about $250 million to $300 million. I think those were the figures he used. However that will be used up when we get to Bill C-10 and the number of additional people we will put into jails for longer periods of time at the federal level. Therefore, there really is no money in the budget. If the government is serious about getting both Bill C-9 and Bill C-10 through, there is no money for the provinces. All of that money, and a lot more quite frankly, will get used up in the federal system if Bill C-10, the mandatory minimums, gets through as it is presently drafted. I assume we will get to that bill some time later in the week.

The government has slapped this bill together in a slipshod manner more out of ideology and philosophy of how it would like to see society function than any reality of how it does. It brought forward this section and could not care less about what it will cost the provinces. After talking with some of the attorneys general, I know there has been no specific discussion of how much this will cost and no assurances or guarantees from the government that it will fund it. What it is doing is downloading this cost of its ideology onto the provinces.

We are not talking peanuts. We are talking operational dollars of $200 million to $250 million a year if this goes through and substantial additional capital. The best estimate I can give, since the government does not have one, is somewhere between $200 million and $500 million for the additional prison cells that will need to be built to accommodate the additional 4,000 to 4,500 prisoners at the provincial level.

The other negative byproduct of this approach to criminal justice by the government is that conditional sentences have been used in a significantly higher percentage among first nation peoples than it has for criminals in other sectors of society. I will give one example.

In Saskatchewan, where conditional sentencing has been used, and arguably more extensively than any place except the province of Quebec on a per capita basis, 64% of the conditional sentences are for individuals who come from the first nations, Métis and Inuit population.

A number of years ago the province of Saskatchewan, probably around the same time as the conditional sentences were working their way through, made the conscious decision to reduce its prison population and to specifically target first nations because first nations population members make up almost 80% of the prison population at the provincial level in Saskatchewan. It has had a significant impact in Saskatchewan of reducing that population, of keeping them in society, of keeping them in their communities and of rehabilitating them at a much more effective rate.

We all know, and no one in the House should delude themselves otherwise, that the longer someone is in prison the higher the rate of recidivism and the more people are kept our of prison the lower the rate of recidivism.

Saskatchewan is saying that it has a major problem. Is the province able to get around it? If it can, why are we bothering with this bill? The real possibility is that Saskatchewan will not plea bargain a little bit. It may plea bargain a lot.

We need to appreciate that the alternatives to probation and suspended sentences are nowhere near as effective as the tools we get from conditional sentencing. The judges have a much broader scope of the conditions that they can impose on the convicted criminal under this section than the authorities have under the probation provision or the judges have if they were to impose a suspended sentence.

We are doing one of two things here. We will either end up with more people in our provincial prisons, which means the provinces will carry that bill, and, as a result, our first nations people in particular will be targeted, or the same number will be kept out but under suspended sentence or maybe probation where they may receive a short sentence period and then a long probation period. However the tools we will now have under the suspended sentence provision or probation will be much less effective than under a conditional sentence.

We need to understand the history here. Judges had begun to use the conditional sentencing concept and in a number of cases they imposed conditions. We heard the Bloc member say that one of the conditions is the person could not consume alcohol in his or her own home. A number of provisions, such as that one, were challenged under the charter and the higher courts ruled that a judge did not have the authority because it was not provided for in the Criminal Code or other legislation.

What happened is that this provision was put in. The judges then said that they now had the tools and, in cooperation with the prosecutors, the police, the defence counsels and the criminal himself or herself, that they would develop a specific set of conditions applicable to that person to control his or her behaviour and make a serious attempt at rehabilitation.

One of the concerns I have with the government jumping ahead as it is right now is that there are no studies. I have checked throughout the private sector academia and there are no good studies on just how effective the conditional sentences have been. There is a fair amount of anecdotal that they have been and we know we have substantially reduced our prison population at the provincial level. It has been effective from that perspective which is one of the major things it was to do. However, on the rate of recidivism we do not have that and we should have that before we proceed with this legislation.

I believe all parties recognize that there are certain cases of serious violent crimes for which conditional sentences should not be available. My belief is that when the bill comes out of committee we will see that section amended to the degree where at least that will be covered. I believe the concerns we have heard from society will be addressed but we will not have to go any further and eliminate a tool that has been a very effective one for our judges and our prosecutors.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, people have honed in on various offences that are covered by Bill C-9. Some of the ones which members opposite have referred to as being less serious are break and enter with intent to commit indictable offence and being unlawfully in a dwelling house. Those two provisions, at the discretion at the prosecutor, can be pursued by way of summary conviction or by way of indictment. If a prosecutor, in his or her discretion, were to decide to pursue them by way of summary conviction, a conditional sentence would still be available.

I take issue with the comment that theft over $5,000 and possession of stolen property over $5,000 are less serious. I think Canadians sent a pretty clear message that property crimes are crimes against people. There are victims to property crimes, not only the ones the government is targeting that deal with physical injury to a person, such as torture, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, hostage taking, all these heinous crimes are covered by Bill C-9.

Is it not necessary to, not only on crimes that involve physically injuring another member of society but also on serious property crimes, send a message that Canadians no longer want to be victims of these crimes and that as a government we take them seriously, that we also take the principle of denunciation and deterrence seriously and that, in many cases, conditional sentences would be inappropriate even for serious property crimes?

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

Mr. Speaker, my house has been broken into on three different occasions over the last 15 years, so I do not need to be told by the parliamentary secretary how people feel as victims of crimes that are not an assault on the body. I understand what it is like to be a victim. I also understand how the system works.

If the crime is committed by a repeat offender that person is not going to be considered for conditional sentencing anyway because that repeat offender will be going down for longer than two years. That criminal will not even get through the initial screening. What the government is doing is allowing this section to be used in a scattered approach, depending on what a prosecutor wants to do in his or her area versus what is done in a neighbouring county or province. The federal government is responsible for criminal law. We need one pattern for the whole country, not mixed ones province by province or region by region.

This section leaves it open for abuse if we allow discretionary calls by prosecutors. Some will use the conditional sentencing quite extensively and others will try to avoid it. The ones who want to avoid it will simply lay the higher charges and get themselves out of the conditional sentencing provisions.

It comes back to using the tool effectively and as much as possible and recognizing that it not be used for serious violent offences. That is one of the things that really bothers me about the approach the government is taking to criminal law. It is running on anecdotes, on the odd case where a judge made a mistake. The government is trying to pass laws to take care of the few mistakes. If it does that, we are going to end up with many more ruined lives because more hardened criminals will come out of the system.

The United States has the highest prison population rate in a western democracy by far. It is six to seven times our prison population rate. The U.S. incarceration rate is running at about 700 per 100,000. Ours is at about 115 or 120 and most of western Europe is below 100. If it worked, the violent crime rate in the United States would be seven times lower than in western Europe and Canada. We all know that the violent crime rate in the United States is four to six times higher in spite of all that incarceration.

Incarceration is not the answer. We are trying to avoid recidivism. We are trying to rehabilitate and yes, we are trying to protect society. The greatest way to protect society is to make sure that the person who has committed one offence does not commit another one. Sending a person to prison is rarely the answer to guaranteeing that the person is not going to commit a crime again. My family and I would feel a lot safer if conditional sentencing was used rather than the alternative being proposed by the government.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on his remarks. I am particularly grateful to him for making us aware that Bill C-9 would have a very significant impact on aboriginal communities.

There is an aboriginal community in my riding. I believe that it is entirely correct to say that there is a discriminatory and punitive view of society behind this. I would very much like to hear his comments.

In my view, the Conservative government is conflating two things. First, making our society a better place to live, an objective on which we are all in agreement, there must be security and a lot of other things, like social programs, jobs and social cohesion.

The second is the notion that in order to achieve security, punishment is the only option. All of the rehabilitation programs, or the flexibility that might be available in sentencing, including conditional sentences, are seen as giving in to crime, to criminal behaviour and to criminals.

By conflating these two things, we end up aiming for one objective, security, but at the expense of making our society a better place to live. We can put up walls to protect the rich, but we will never prevent people who live in poverty from sometimes trying to get out of it by routes that are not, unfortunately, honest.

The problem is poverty. It is not necessarily security. I would like to hear his comments on this question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for his question. He is right.

Quebec is a good province to look at from this perspective. Under the Parti Québécois and the Liberals, that province made conscious decisions with regard to preventing juvenile crime and when it did occur, to rehabilitate the juvenile as effectively as possible. Quebec did that more consciously than any other province. We were still using the young offenders law at that time, so I am going to say it was close to 30 years ago that that province started doing this.

We can see the pattern if we compare Ontario and Quebec, or one of the western provinces, and I will use Alberta because it is probably the most restrictive. The rates of juvenile offences in Quebec stayed at a significantly lower level than some of the other provinces, for example, Alberta.

The member is right. Quebec's approach was to look at the root causes of crime. Some first nations feel completely alienated from our mainstream society. Some visible minorities feel disenfranchised and disconnected. Some individuals are from poor, dysfunctional families. We need to address those problems.

Instead of telling the provinces that they are going to spend $200 million to $250 million a year more on incarcerating people, if we tell them that they are going to spend it on prevention programs for youth, we would get a much better bang for our buck.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to the provisions of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment).

The bill implements one of the centrepieces of the criminal justice platform that the government presented to Canadians in the last election. Since the previous government made conditional sentences available as a sentencing option almost 10 years ago, the public has grown increasingly concerned about the way they have been used. In particular, Canadians have strong reservations about serious violent offenders receiving this form of penalty, and indeed, in repeat property offenders receiving this type of penalty.

I had the occasion to speak to the Vancouver city police last week. An individual with 125 convictions is still eligible for conditional sentencing. We see repeat offenders receiving conditional sentences over and over again.

The previous government assured us that this would not occur. Indeed in October 2005 my predecessor stated that conditional sentencing would be used for the purposes for which it was specifically intended and it was not to be used for the purposes of providing house arrest or any other penalty of that kind where a serious and violent criminal offence had occurred.

As the Prime Minister said on April 19 during a speech in Winnipeg, “Simply put, the current practice of allowing some criminals who have been convicted of serious and violent sexual, weapons and drug offences to serve out their sentences at home is unconscionable”. This is why the government promised during the election campaign to end conditional sentences for the crimes that Canadians find the most serious and which deserve the greatest punishment and denunciation. What better way to determine what is the most serious offence than by simply going to the Criminal Code itself and looking at what the Criminal Code classifies as serious offences.

We committed to send a message that serious crime will mean serious time. Currently, conditional sentences, that is, sentences served in the community and more often than not in the home rather than in a correctional facility, are an option for use by judges under certain conditions. First, the sentence must be less than two years. 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. Third, the offence must not be punishable by a minimum term of imprisonment. Fourth, sentencing an offender to serve a conditional sentence of imprisonment must be consistent with the fundamental purposes and principles of sentencing set out in the Criminal Code. These include sentencing objectives such as denunciation, general deterrence and separation of the offender from society.

These prerequisites were designed to screen out the most serious or violent cases from getting a conditional sentence of imprisonment. Indeed when the previous government introduced the sentencing option, it gave assurances that it would not be used for serious or violent offenders.

These relatively lenient sanctions, especially when compared to incarceration, have been extended to serious and violent offenders. This has caused a great deal of concern in the communities where the offenders have ended up serving their sentences. Law enforcement agencies and victims organizations are concerned as well.

In the leading case of R. v. Proulx, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that while a conditional sentence can be onerous and used to express the objectives of denunciation and deterrence, it will usually be more lenient than a jail sentence of equal duration. I can only say that speaks to common sense. We do not often hear of a defence lawyer standing up and strenuously arguing for jail instead of house arrest. The Supreme Court went on to say that there were objectives such as denunciation and deterrence and they are particularly pressing. In those cases, incarceration will likely be the more attractive sanction.

In order to improve and strengthen the criminal law and ensure that there is a strong response to serious crime, this bill introduces an additional prerequisite to the availability of conditional sentences of imprisonment.

This condition effectively prohibits the use of conditional sentences for offences in the Criminal Code, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and other federal statutes that are punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment. This would capture, for example, impaired driving causing bodily harm, which has a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, and impaired driving causing death, which has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Indeed, this is a matter that Mothers Against Drunk Driving has continuously raised with members of the House and the bill seeks to address that particular issue.

This amendment would also capture the major drug offences prosecuted by indictment.

What are some of the other offences that will be ineligible for a conditional sentencing order after the bill comes into force? There are many, including serious property and administration of justice offences, such as theft over $5,000, break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence, forgery, fraud over $5,000, bribery, perjury, criminal breach of trust, robbery, arson, and making counterfeit money.

These offences are in addition to the serious personal injury offences that will be excluded from the conditional sentencing regime, including: criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death; dangerous operation of a motor vehicle where injury or death occur; sexual assault prosecuted by indictment and aggravated sexual assault; abduction; assault causing bodily harm with a weapon; aggravated assault offences involving explosives; manslaughter; attempted murder; kidnapping; and hostage taking. These are all, at the present time, eligible for house arrest.

This is a long list of some of the most serious offences in the eyes of Canadians. Of course, not every one of these offences has always resulted in a conditional sentence, but too often they have, and it has caused concern with the public and the criminal justice system.

For example, Ontario data for the last fiscal year show almost 200 break and enters with intent, over 300 frauds over $5,000, and 130 robberies. A robbery is not a theft. A robbery is either violence or threat of violence. Thirty-nine aggravated assaults resulted in conditional sentence orders.

These are all the kinds of cases that the prior government said would never result in house arrest.

B.C. statistics show that a total of 466 convictions punishable by 10 years or more received conditional sentence orders. In Quebec, the figure for the period October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005 was just over 1,000. In Saskatchewan last year, 603 offenders, or 61% of all conditionally sentenced offenders, received a conditional sentence order for offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more.

I want to give members a few examples that are drawn from a report prepared by Alberta Justice and Attorney General and tabled with the House of Commons justice committee in 2003, entitled “The Conditional Sentence of Imprisonment: The Need for Amendment”.

In R. v. Hall, which went to the B.C. Court of Appeal, the offender was found guilty of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and attempting to obstruct justice. He was sentenced to 18 months on the aggravated assault, concurrent with two 12-month sentences for each of the weapons offences and three months consecutive on the attempting to obstruct justice offence, all to be served conditionally, that is, outside of the jail context. The Crown appealed.

It was a swarming attack. The victim was surrounded and attacked. He received a stab wound in the back. He was struck in the back. He was stabbed in the lower back and was forced to his knees. He looked up and saw a meat cleaver aimed at his head. He put his arms up to protect himself and, as a result, his elbow bone was cut cleanly in two. One of the bones went some distance up his arm. He nevertheless managed to run away and obtain help. An ambulance was summoned. He was taken to the hospital and operated on. He spent over a week in the hospital.

His school activities were affected, as were his sporting activities. His impact statement described the continuing effect the injury has had on his life as well as indirectly on his family. The Court of Appeal maintained the conditional sentence. The court found the sentence length on the low end but not unfit.

A second example can be found in R. v. Poulin, a Nova Scotia case in which the respondent was found guilty of counselling the offence of murder. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two years less a day, and again, to be served in the community subject to certain conditions. The Crown appealed the sentence, submitting that the sentence inadequately reflected the objectives of denunciation and deterrence and that the judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for the sentence.

The Court of Appeal found, after considering the record and submissions of counsel, that the trial judge committed no error in principle and that the sentence imposed, while at the very low end of the acceptable range, was not demonstrably unfit in the circumstances. For counselling murder, the individual served his sentence at home. In this matter, the offender, on at least one occasion, had offered money to have his wife killed after an argument with her.

A final example is in another Nova Scotia case, R. v. C.(W.M.). In September 2002, the offender, a 57 year old male doctor in a rural area, was convicted of indecently assaulting three male patients between the ages of 13 and 15 who were seeking medical attention. The doctor, who of course was in a position of trust, was found guilty and, in the words of the court, “showed no remorse”. The Crown asked for a period of incarceration from three to five years. He was given an 18 month conditional sentence concurrently on all counts, the court finding as mitigating factors “that the offences did not include violence or threats of violence”. Let us imagine that. These 13 year old children were assaulted by a doctor while receiving treatment and the only thing the court could say when the individual himself showed no remorse was that there was no violence or threats of violence.

These are just three instances of the inappropriate use of conditional sentences that have resulted in the sanction being held in disrepute. The courts in fact have found that these are applicable, so it is the responsibility of this Parliament to change the law to make sure this does not happen again.

My department, working with provincial and territorial officials, suggested a number of ways in which access to conditional sentence orders could be restricted. Of all of the options considered, the bill before us today represents, in my opinion, the clearest and most straightforward approach.

Having said that, there are a few matters I feel I should point out to my hon. colleagues.

First, while many offenders who would have been eligible for a conditional sentence order will in the future serve their time in custody, not all will. It is anticipated that some will receive a suspended sentence with probation. Some offenders who would now be eligible for a conditional sentence order will likely get a prison sentence that is shorter than the conditional sentence it replaces, followed by a period of probation of several months.

Second, this amendment targets only indictable offences and not offences prosecuted by summary conviction. In cases of so-called hybrid offences, a conditional sentence of imprisonment will only be unavailable in respect of those offences prosecuted by way of indictment. In order to ensure that the sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and to the degree of the responsibility of the offender, the justice system will have to rely on police and prosecutors exercising their discretion prudently and using a summary conviction charge in appropriate cases only, as is the case at present, where the Crown has the discretion as to whether or not to proceed by way of summary or indictment.

Third, there is no question that provinces and territories will incur increased costs in building jails and hiring additional prosecutors and correctional staff. There is a cost to enhanced public protection and greater respect for the law. My sense is that most Canadians are prepared to see a portion of their taxes directed to maintaining a just, peaceful and safe society.

Conditional sentences are sometimes an appropriate sentencing tool, but they should not be used for serious offences. I am convinced that the appropriate use of conditional sentence orders will strengthen confidence in the sanction itself and in the administration of justice.

We cannot overstate the importance of public confidence in the criminal justice system. Safe homes and safe streets have been defining characteristics of the Canadian way of life. As Canadians, we have until the last few years rightly been proud of our sense of community, safety and personal security. This recent but widespread decline in public confidence in the criminal justice system in general, and the sentencing, correctional and parole processes in particular, must be addressed.

Those of us who have had the honour of being elected to the 39th Parliament of Canada must take the lead in improving our constituents' sense of safety and security and their confidence in the institutions that have been established to protect us all. That is why this government has promised to introduce the most comprehensive reforms to the criminal justice systems in recent Canadian history.

The two bills I have been proud to introduce to date are only the start of a mission to change the criminal justice system of this country. In the coming weeks and months, there will be many other legislative and non-legislative measures introduced in this House by myself and my colleague, the Minister of Public Safety, that will contribute to the protection of law-abiding Canadians.

I recently had the privilege of inaugurating Canada's first national victims of crime awareness week. The Government of Canada takes victims' issues seriously. We will continue to work to ensure victims have a respected voice in the federal corrections and justice system and receive the assistance and support they need.

In closing, I call on members of the House to join me in supporting this legislation. Together, we can assure Canadians that they can live on safe streets, in safe communities, in a just and secure society.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister. He talks a lot about messaging. I would like to talk more about criminal sentencing. I see a lot of areas of concern in the bill he has tabled. He talks about seriousness and sentencing.

In this country we cannot very often find a car that would retail or sell for under $5,000. We have a situation in this bill and I am wondering how the minister would justify it. I will give the minister one good example. I will call to your attention the fact that as this bill is written now it is possible for someone convicted of a sexual assault to receive a conditional sentence if the prosecutor chooses to proceed by way of summary conviction, but it is absolutely impossible for anyone convicted of a vehicle theft over $5,000 to have a conditional sentence.

How does the minister justify that to Canadians? Here we have a sexual assault versus an auto theft and you have them so that one is more serious than the other. I think there is some mix-up in the thinking there. I do not understand why property rights seem to get more than personal injury.

I believe there are, as I have stated, some areas where we can find agreement, but I also see that some of the logic has been given over to just getting a simple message out. The criminal law should be nuanced. The justice system is nuanced and, as members know, we have very good actors, people who work day in and day out, whether they are prosecutors, defence counsel or the justices in the system. They listen to the facts of the case. More than anything else, the message really being sent is that judges are not doing their jobs, in the minister's opinion, because they are the ones who usually take the input from the counsel and the prosecutor and give the sentences.

You are fettering discretion with this bill. I believe that we should have respect for the people in this country who are paid to actually interpret the law, listen to the facts and rely on the evidence. I would ask the minister to deal with that one example that I gave of auto theft not being eligible for conditional sentencing and somebody that is going to get a summary conviction sexual assault being ineligible.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I would like to remind the hon. member for London West to address her remarks through the Chair.

I recognize the hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, on the issue of the role of judges, I understand the role of judges and the role of Parliament is to send out principles of sentencing.

One of the principles of sentencing, for example, with respect to first degree murder is that the sentence is life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum of 25 years before parole. That is a specific sentence direction we send to the courts. That is the role of this Parliament. Often judges have said that if individuals do not like the sentence, they should see their parliamentarian. That is our responsibility and for the member to suggest that this House abdicate its responsibility is simply wrong.

In respect of the one situation that she has pointed out, sexual assault, I made very clear, and perhaps the member was not listening, that in the context of the Criminal Code there are hybrid offences. Sexual assault is a hybrid offence punishable either by a summary conviction in less serious cases or indictment in more serious cases. In the more serious cases, conditional sentences would not be applicable.

The problem with the entire definition of sexual assault is that we moved away from what it used to be called. It used to be called rape. There used to be a very clear distinction between what was a rape and what was a sexual assault. The summary conviction on sexual assault can be something as serious, but as minor, if I can use the word, as simply inappropriate touching. Inappropriate touching of a sexual part is a sexual assault. We are saying in that particular case to leave it to the Crown's discretion to determine whether it should proceed by way of indictment, where no conditional sentence is available, or summary conviction in those less serious cases.

With respect to the issue of over $5,000, there are people today who have literally stolen hundreds of cars and still receive conditional sentences. There are periods of probation available.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you are from Winnipeg. You know what having one's car stolen on a regular basis is all about. Many of your constituents have indicated as much. I might indicate in fact that your provincial government is very supportive of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very closely to the hon. Minister of Justice. I would of course like to ask him a question.

I remind the hon. Minister of Justice that he has been on the other side; he has been a crown attorney and he was the Attorney General of Manitoba until just recently. We had this sort of discussion in committee when he tabled this same bill last year, when he was in opposition. At that time I had asked him a few questions.

First of all, a comment before I ask my question. I am surprised to hear the hon. Minister of Justice being critical of the fact that a person should still be at liberty after stealing hundreds of cars. I am surprised that he is surprised at the conditional sentences being handed out. That is so because crown attorneys, as I would respectfully suggest to the minister, do not have the time or the money to appeal cases. They would have to be given the time and the money to be able to do so. Once these decisions are confirmed by the court of appeal, we can talk about this again.

My question is much more important. What we have here is a societal debate. How can we talk today about sentencing individualization, as we have recently been reminded with such brilliance by the Supreme Court, when the bill tabled by the Minister of Justice would put an end to it or obstruct it by giving the suppression of crime priority over rehabilitation and sentencing individualization? I would very much like the Minister of Justice to explain his conception of the role of judges.

I would add that, recently, the Quebec Court of Appeal reviewed a sentence in the Coffin decision, where the man in question, who was implicated in the sponsorship scandal, had received a sentence of 18 months. In response to public demand and intervention, the court appealed the case and this man was given a prison sentence without possibility of parole. At the moment, that is the best way to proceed, that is, have the court of appeal review decisions that are not in line with the intentions of the crown attorneys.

I would like the Minister of Justice to explain to me how he will go about explaining to the people that this is the end of sentencing individualization and rehabilitation, in favour and to the benefit of repression.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's first question, the role of a judge is to interpret constitutionally appropriate law and apply the law. This is the role of the judge. It is the role of Parliament to establish policy, including sentencing policy.

With respect to my colleague's suggestion to simply appeal these cases, quite frankly that has been tried on numerous occasions. In fact, when I was the Attorney General of Manitoba, I sent a number of cases not only to the Court of Appeal, but beyond the Court of Appeal, to the Supreme Court of Canada. On impaired driving causing death or injury, the Supreme Court of Canada said it is appropriate to give conditional sentences or house arrest.

We have seen manslaughter cases now given conditional sentences. We see cocaine traffic dealers regularly getting conditional sentences. These are all at the Court of Appeal level.

As we know, as a general rule, the Supreme Court of Canada does not hear appeals on sentencing. Therefore, in many provinces the bar has been established. Quite frankly, that bar is too low. The responsibility now of this Parliament is to reset that bar.

In respect of the suggestion that somehow all discretion is now taken out of sentencing, this is, quite frankly, wrong. My colleague knows that suspended sentences and probation orders are still available.

I heard one comment that in a probation order a person cannot be told not to drink alcohol. That is a standard condition of a probation order. If we need to work on how to improve probation orders, then that is another issue. Conditional sentences simply are not appropriate for the kinds of matters that the government has brought forward in Bill C-9.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, this is a very important issue affecting all of our constituents and has had a lot of public interest for a very long period of time. Our mutual obligation, as all of us know, is to ensure that our citizens are protected, that we have an adequate prevention program, that we work with the provinces, and that we have an integrated plan for rehabilitation throughout our penal system. In that way we can ensure that those who run afoul the law will have the best opportunities for rehabilitation.

On the particular issue of mandatory minimums, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police took a very balanced view built on the work that was done on Bill C-70 in the last Parliament. If it were adopted by the House, we would have seen mandatory minimums implemented in a certain way that would have been reasonable and built on the minimums introduced back in 1995.

I will quote the statement from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which I think is a very balanced approach. It stated:

The CACP supports minimum mandatory sentencing for certain crimes that align with the concept of serious consequences for serious crimes. We also support the elimination of conditional sentences for those convicted of serious offences keeping in mind that conditional sentences do have a place in sentencing principles for judges.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police can be interpreted as taking a balanced view, recognizing that sentencing guidelines have to be put into place for crimes that are quite serious, particularly those involving assault, sexual offences and offences involving organized crime. If we were to utilize a balanced approach, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned during her speech, then we would ensure that the courts have sentencing guidelines that will enable them to protect citizens from a core of a relatively small number of individuals who are responsible for the bulk of the crimes committed in our society.

If we were to speak to police officers in any community, they would generally say there is a core group of individuals in each community who are committing offences on a repeated basis, who have no regard for the law, and often exist in a revolving door within the justice system. It is very frustrating for our police officers on the ground and certainly for those who are victimized by these individuals. A lot of them do not have any respect for the law and maintain a disregard for it knowing full well that the courts frequently will not impose the sentences required for those individuals who are committing these crimes.

Having said that, it would be unwise for us to impose minimum mandatory sentencing for first offenders with extenuating circumstances around the offence committed. Albeit these are rare occasions, but the court should have the flexibility to ensure that these individuals are not simply thrown into prison and the key thrown away after receiving very long sentences for a situation that had mitigating factors. I will provide an example.

Data and information were looked at in certain parts of the world regarding mandatory minimum sentencing for people who had been convicted for possession charges on a repeated basis. It was found that mandatory minimum sentences did not provide a disincentive for the individual to use drugs. In fact, it found that where mandatory minimum sentences were imposed on those convicted of possession charges, there was actually a 3% increase in recidivism. In effect, we are actually making matters worse under these circumstances.

I know that is not the intent of anybody in the House, so I caution the Minister of Justice to look at the facts. A very large body of evidence has been accumulated in looking at this particular issue because this type of sentencing is of great interest to a lot of countries in the western world. I would encourage the minister to look at that information. I know a lot of it is in his department because that is where we obtained a lot of that information. I think he would be wise and prudent to take a look at that.

The minister could also look at sentencing guidelines in a different way. Some jurisdictions have used sentencing guidelines in such a way that prosecution lawyers have turned some individuals into informants. Informants are very important in helping our police officers go after the kingpins of organized crime gangs.

Organized criminal activity is a very serious problem in our country. It is sad to say that crime gangs have found it very attractive to set up shop here for various reasons. In the former government, the minister of justice introduced tougher penalties for organized crime gangs. A lot of those penalties were quite exciting. I will give some examples.

We toughened up the RICO provisions, the racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations charges. If we really want to get organized crime gangs we have to go after their money. If we go after the financial underpinnings of organized crime gangs then we are getting to their heart, to their bread and butter, that which fuels their organizations. We toughened up the RICO provisions that would have enabled us to apprehend the proceeds from crime.

In the case of somebody who was convicted of being involved in organized criminal activity, historically it would be up to the crown to prove where the individual received that money. We turned that on its head to make sure that the individual who has been convicted has to prove where the money has come from in order to ensure that the money has been acquired by law-abiding means and if it has not, the courts have the power to extract the money. That very exciting and powerful tool enables our courts to go after the financial underpinnings of organized crime.

There are other things that we have to do. I want to delve into a subject that is a big problem, and that is the issue of substance abuse in our communities. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he looks at substance abuse as an issue of personal morality. He has lamented that society does not sanction people with substance abuse issues in a negative way.

People who have substance abuse problems have a medical problem, not a judicial problem and they have to be dealt with in that way. If we throw the book at people who have a substance abuse problem, or try to deal with them as a judicial problem, we are going to be making matters worse. We are going to increase their level of criminality. It is certainly not going to address the heart of the problem. While many of these individuals have a substance abuse problem, they also have what is called dual diagnosis. A lot of them have a psychiatric problem as well. It is a toxic marriage between a psychiatric problem and a substance abuse problem. Both feed off each other. It is a profound tragedy for those afflicted.

Mr. Speaker, you have seen it in your community, as have all of us in our communities. Among the individuals living on the streets, we see a subpopulation of homeless individuals who have a substance abuse problem, a psychiatric problem, or both. We are not dealing with this in a very intelligent way. I was dismayed and disheartened last week when the Prime Minister was in Victoria and said that he was not going to continue with the harm reduction strategy that we have been using in east Vancouver to great effect. It has saved a lot of people's lives. He is going to need “more studies”.

The studies have been done and the evidence is very persuasive. Lives have been saved. There has been a decrease in the rates of HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B. If the Prime Minister wants to save lives of individuals who are living in the conditions that none of us would ever want to experience, then he had better look at the facts, remove his sense of morality and look at this as a way of saving people's lives and reducing harm. If he wants to do that he should extend the east Vancouver experience to other communities in Canada. Communities across the country that are trying to grapple with the issue of substance abuse need to adopt these programs. The Prime Minister and his justice minister need to give these programs the green light.

In Victoria, B.C. the chief medical officer, Dr. Richard Stanwick, has put together a very comprehensive and exciting harm reduction strategy based on work that has been done in Frankfurt and other parts of Europe. Those experiences show very clearly that to reduce substance abuse a comprehensive view is what works. If necessary, the person should have access to a safe injection site and the drug. This may rub people the wrong way, but if we do not give the drug, the person will become involved with organized criminal activity and we would not have dealt with a very important part of the picture. It will take some people a while to get their heads around this idea, but if they thought about it properly and logically instead of through the prism of morality, they would see that this would work.

If necessary, the person should have access to a safe injection site and the drug that the person needs. Along with that, if necessary, there should be counselling and psychiatric help because of the dual diagnosis I mentioned earlier. The person also needs skills training and work.

The unions would be wise not to stick their noses into this and try to impose union desires on an issue that is a matter of life and death for these individuals. Work was an integral part of the treatment program for the individuals on the ground. Work gave people in the programs a sense of structure and discipline that they never had before. It gave them a sense of self-worth and meaning and enabled them to connect with other parts of their treatment program that had to happen over a prolonged period of time.

It is an integrated program and it works. In order for that to happen the justice minister has to give the okay. I would put forward a plea to the justice minister and the Prime Minister that they give the green light to Victoria and other parts of Canada to proceed. I ask them not to cut off the ability of these programs to function. They were going to cut off the ability of harm reduction programs to occur in this country. If they did that, they would essentially be signing a death warrant for people who live on the street. It would increase the rates of hepatitis C, hepatitis B and HIV. I am sure that is not what they would want but that is exactly what the consequence of their actions would be if they did not give the green light to these programs forthwith.

There are many people on the street who will be dead a year from now if these programs are not continued or started. I challenge the government to allow them to proceed. It is a matter of basic humanity and justice.

There are a number of other suggestions I would submit to the Minister of Justice. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police came up with a series of recommendations in August 2005. In those recommendations were a number of very cogent solutions that would enable them to do their job as effectively as they do. As I said before, we are deeply grateful for the work they do. They put their lives on the line for the security of all of us. They need to establish an integrated police framework and interoperable radio communications programs. Our former deputy prime minister was working on that. The Minister of Justice would be wise to continue with that program.

We also need to support the RCMP's jetway program. That training program has been extremely effective in enabling RCMP officers to identify criminals and apprehend the proceeds of crime.

Also there is a very important issue on fingerprinting particularly with respect to indictable offences. If individuals are charged with an indictable offence and they do not consent to fingerprinting the arresting authorities have two options: release or jail them. This is ridiculous. It is a major impediment to justice being done and for the individuals to go before the courts and be prosecuted. It is very important that this happen.

I would also suggest that the Minister of Justice work with his provincial counterparts to come up with some way of letting firefighters know when they are going into a suspected grow op or crystal meth house. Right now our firefighters are going into these houses without knowing what awaits them. Many crystal meth labs and grow ops are fires waiting to happen. They are lethal places for firefighters to walk into as they are often booby trapped. I understand that personal privacy issues are involved here, but the lives of our firefighters have to trump the privacy issues of individuals whose homes are suspected of being crystal meth labs or grow ops.

This would be a simple thing to do. I would encourage the Minister of Justice to work with Commissioner Zaccardelli of the RCMP and with its provincial counterparts to come up with a way that firefighters could make a quick call to the local RCMP or police station to find out whether or not they are going into a grow op or crystal meth lab. We would be doing due diligence and justice and would be saving the lives of the firefighters who protect us.

The government cancelled the early learning program that we set up. One program that has been shown to be effective at preventing crime is the headstart program for children, a program which ensures that children's basic needs are met. A 25 year retrospective analysis on headstart programs showed a 50% to 60% reduction in youth crime. Imagine that. Headstart programs can be found in Moncton, New Brunswick and Ypsilanti, Michigan. There is also the Hawaii healthy start program.

When I was putting myself through school, I worked as a guard in a maximum security prison. The high incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome was evident among the prison population. It is estimated that between 40% and 50% of individuals in jail suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol affects. Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading cause of preventable congenital brain damage in Canada. An individual suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome often has a median IQ of about 70 as well as a host of problems trying to integrate into society. Fetal alcohol syndrome is irreversible, but it is preventable.

Fetal alcohol syndrome can be prevented if individuals are spoken to before they have children. Imagine the cost savings to the health system. Imagine the decline in the prison population. Fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol affects are preventable. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health should be gripped with this issue because simple, sensible and cost-effective things can be done to prevent this from happening.

Individuals suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome are often marginalized in school because of their low IQs and the psychological challenges they face. Imagine if that did not happen. Those children would have an incredible opportunity to become integrated members of society.

If the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health were to look at the headstart program, if they were to build on the early learning program that my party put together, they would be doing something quite remarkable for Canadian society. Youth crime and teen pregnancy rates would be reduced. Kids would stay in school longer, thus reducing their dependence on our social programs.

I have laid out some constructive solutions that I hope the minister will consider. The former parliamentary secretary provided her cogent solutions on minimum mandatory sentencing and the work we did through former Bill C-70. We certainly hope that we can craft a bill that will serve the public well and help our police officers while also reducing criminality within our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I found the presentation by my hon. colleague fairly entertaining, it was rather meandering as he went from topic to topic.

Bill C-9 is something that is long overdue. It is time that the government got tough on crime. People committing serious crimes must do the time. Over and over my constituents in Selkirk—Interlake have said to me that they want to ensure people who are a menace to society do their time in prison.

Does my colleague across the way feel that his constituents are also in agreement that dangerous and violent offenders, or repeat offenders who commit property crimes, like home invasions, should spend a fair amount of time in jail, rather than in house arrest or traditional sentences, which allows them to wander the streets and recommit those crimes?

Could the hon. member talk about that specific aspect of the bill and how his constituents feel about ensuring their communities are safe? Does the hon. member's constituents feel that it is safe to allow their children to play in playgrounds or walk the streets? Do his constituents have the sense of security, which we treasure as Canadians?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the hon. member are very interesting. All our citizens want to be able to walk the streets safely. In certain pockets of our country that is not the case and that is very sad. We need to ensure that the police have the ability to make the streets safer and that we incorporate and involve the necessary programs so we can deal with the underlying reasons of why some of those people engage in behaviours that violate our laws.

Has the member looked at the statistics on criminal activity from the Department of Justice and whether it has gone up or down over the last five years? The homicide rates now are 2 per 100,000. Six years ago they were 1.8 per 2,000. The homicide rates have been quite static. For the most serious criminal activity, the rates have declined for quite some time. That situation exists in most of western society. It certainly exists within our own country.

I would encourage the member to take a look those. He would see that not only have incidences of serious offences, such as sexual offences and assault causing bodily harm, declined on an ongoing basis over the last six to eight years, but less serious and non-violent offences have declined as well. In fact, the bulk of the offences have declined.

On balance, we would all support initiatives to ensure that our society is safer, that those who are inveterate criminals pay time commensurate with the criminal activity in which they have engaged. However, we must also employ preventative measures that ensure some people do not fall afoul of the law and engage in criminal activity.

I have mentioned before that we must deal with the psychiatric issues such as the underlying issues of fetal alcohol syndrome and prevention of those as well as the head start program, all of which will put less dependence and demand on our justice system.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, I represent the poorest riding in Canada, the lowest income riding in the whole country. As such, even though I am reluctant to say, there is a direct connection between poverty and being exposed to crime and violence. When I survey the constituents whom I represent, the overwhelmingly top of mind issue by a factor of four to one is the issue of crime, safety and the violence in the crime they are exposed to on an all too frequent basis.

I know my colleague from Vancouver Island and I share some similar views regarding incarceration as the avenue of recourse for this type of social malaise. However, is he aware that the United States has the highest rate of incarceration anywhere in the world? It imprisons about 700 people for every 100,000 of population. Canada is second of all the countries in the developed nations. It imprisons 160 people per 100,000 of population. Most of western Europe imprisons less than 100 people per 100,000.

If the logic of Bill C-9 were true, if the empirical evidence were such that putting more people in jail would make the streets safer, I would be inclined to vote for the bill tomorrow. I would have to do so on behalf of the people whom I represent. However, in the place that has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, it also has overwhelmingly the highest incidence of violent crime. There is no direct connection to locking up more people and having safer streets.

I am a member of the NDP party, but that does not mean we are soft on crime. If anything, I come from an area where we want to crack down on crime and make the streets safer. However, the option being put to us is not going to have the desired effect.

Therefore, does my colleague from Vancouver Island shares those views in the jurisdiction that he represents?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it is a balanced approach. Those individuals who are inveterate criminals should be thrown in jail in order to protect Canadian society. These individuals have demonstrated time and time again that they are willing to flaunt the laws. They put the lives of citizens and police at risk and they should be jailed.

The member is correct. This is not a balanced approach to a very complex problem. The government is taking a look at a very blunt instrument, which could make matters worse.

We already have 29 minimum mandatory sentences. We introduced those in 1995 as part of our criminal package. We introduced even more sentences, particularly as they relate to firearms offences, in the last Parliament. However, we also had a balanced approach in dealing with prevention through the early learning program and in supporting head start programs across the country. I think the member alluded to that. This is not a binary decision. It is not us or the United States.

There are many superb programs around the world that can be utilized. They have been proven to have an effect on reducing criminal activity while allowing us to get tough on those individuals who are parasites on society, in particular organized criminal gangs and their leaders. Those individuals are the real parasites on a society.

However, we do not need to have a blunt approach that could make matters worse. We need to have balanced mandatory minimum guidelines that will give the prosecution and police the ability to utilize those in the protection of our society and to ensure that individuals who come before the court and who have been proven to flaunt the laws cannot receive sentences that are not commensurate with their behaviour.

Balance is the key. We have offered a number of constructive solutions to the government, which it ought to adopt. They would allow our streets to be safer and would serve the public well.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand today to speak to Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code, conditional sentence of imprisonment.

As we heard earlier from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the bill would deliver on the government's platform and its commitment to eliminate the availability of conditional sentences for serious crimes, including designated violent and sexual offences, weapons offences, major drugs, crimes committed against children and impaired driving causing death or serious injury. It is a key issue addressed by the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in my riding and community.

The bill would also introduce an additional prerequisite which would have to be met before a sentencing court could consider imposing a conditional sentence. The bill would make conditional sentences unavailable for offences punishable by a maximum of 10 years or more that would be prosecuted by way of indictment. The new bill would screen out serious offences, including serious violent offences in the Criminal Code as well as the major drug offences in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The government's move to reform the conditional sentence regime is an attempt to limit conditional sentences to cases for which they were originally meant to be used. In this regard I would refer hon. members to the comments made in 1994 by the then minister of justice and attorney general, the Hon. Allan Rock. At second reading of Bill C-41, which introduced the conditional sentence of imprisonment as a new sentencing option, he stated:

It seems to me that such an approach would promote the protection of the public by seeking to separate the most serious offenders from the community while providing that less serious offenders can remain among other members of society with effective community based alternatives while still adhering to appropriate conditions.

He went on to add:

Jails and prisons will be there for those who need them, for those who should be punished in that way or separated from society.

In June 2003, the Alberta ministry of justice and attorney general prepared on behalf of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia a paper entitled “The Conditional Sentence of Imprisonment: The Need for Reform”. In the 37th Parliament, this document was provided to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for its review of the operation of conditional sentences of imprisonment.

The paper argued that conditional sentences were an appropriate and effective sentencing tool in many cases, but the committee expressed concern with the use of a community sanction for offences involving serious violence or serious property crime.

The provinces that contributed to the paper were concerned that conditional sentences were being used too often for cases of serious crime, such as serious violent crime, sexual assault and similar offences, impaired driving, dangerous driving and criminal negligence involving death and serious bodily harm.

The options put forward for reform in the paper included a prohibition of the use of conditional sentences for such offences or a rebuttable presumption that a conditional sentence not be used for those serious offences.

On January 25, 2005, federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for justice affirmed that conditional sentences were an appropriate sentencing tool in many cases, but they, too, expressed the need for timely reforms to identify appropriate limits to the use of such sentences, particularly for serious violent offences.

There is a new government now, one that is committed to protecting our families and our communities. One way we can do this is to ensure that conditional sentences are used the way they were originally intended to be used; that is for less serious offences committed without aggravating circumstances.

I agree that conditional sentences can be an appropriate sentencing tool in many cases, but for very serious offences, especially serious violent offences, I am confident that the more appropriate use of conditional sentence orders will strengthen public confidence in, and sanction of, the administration of justice.

By working together, all levels of government, members of law enforcement and of course people from our community, we can move toward a safer society for ourselves and our families.

I believe members will find that it is a myth, or political spin at best, to say that parties opposite are concerned about prevention and that our present government is only about tough justice. I do not think it is unfair to say that part of the reason we are in the position we are in today is due to the weakening of the justice system and a soft approach to crime that has done nothing but see it increase.

Our new government's approach will be visible and it will be practical. In keeping with the platform we were elected on, we will make the streets safer in St. Catharines and all of Canada, and that is one of our top priorities.

Tourism Industry

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to acknowledge the great work of tourism professionals, managers and front line workers who together greet most of the 107 million visitors to Canada each year.

Their good efforts help sustain a tourism industry in Canada that earns $57.5 billion in annual receipts, $17.5 billion in tax revenue, and provides direct employment to well over 615,000 Canadians.

Today the nation's capital welcomes 23 of the managers of Ontario's tourism information centres from across the province. These men and women operate the centres that are often the first point of contact for new visitors to my home province of Ontario, a province that accounts for 40% of Canada's tourism industry.

I invite all hon. members, especially those from Ontario, to join me this afternoon at 3:30 p.m. in Room 238-S for a brief reception to welcome Ontario's tourism information centre managers.

Hockey

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

Mr. Speaker, for the past week, the eyes of the Canadian hockey world have been split between the two remaining NHL playoff series, and I say that because there are some Edmonton Oilers fans still in the House, and the 2006 MasterCard Memorial Cup hosted by my home community, Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe.

The tournament featured the Vancouver Giants, the Peterborough Petes, Quebec Remparts, and the 2006 champions of the QMJHL, our very own Moncton Wildcats.

The voyage to this dream began in 1996 when New Brunswick entrepreneur Robert Irving purchased the Moncton Quebec Major Junior franchise and started on his way.

My thanks and congratulations to the Irving family, to governor Jean Brousseau, head coach Ted Nolan, general manager Bill Schurman, Louis Gaudet from the Province of New Brunswick, Ian Fowler from the City of Moncton, photographer Daniel St-Louis and, of course, the team for one of the best tournaments in the history of the cup.

While the Quebec Remparts bested the Moncton Wildcats in the final, and I express my congratulations, we are very proud of the Wildcats for all their success this year.

Quebec Remparts

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the hockey team that is the pride of Quebec City and the entire province of Quebec.

By scoring a convincing 6 goals to 2 last night against the Moncton Wildcats, the Quebec Remparts won the Memorial Cup for the second time in the team's history.

Winning this cup comes at the end of a dream season for the red devils of Quebec City. Earning a total of 106 points in the regular season they took the western division championship of the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League before moving on to the President's Cup finals.

Throughout the year, the Remparts enjoyed support from fans from the greater Quebec City area. On average, more than 8,000 spectators went to the games to cheer on their team at the Colisée de Québec.

The Bloc Québécois wants to congratulate the players, the staff, the members of the Quebec Remparts organization, and, more specifically, their head coach, Patrick Roy. Congratulations. You are outstanding ambassadors of Quebec City.

Media

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

Mr. Speaker, while the PMO has declared war on the Ottawa media, some people are saying it is a spat and others are saying it is just the intransigence of a man who cannot dare to be second guessed.

I would suggest that the Prime Minister is following through on a carefully planned out strategy, because this is about deciding who gets to ask the questions of Canada's most powerful man. It is about taking the press's power here and putting it under the thumb of the PMO's spinmeisters.

We only have to look south of the border to see the absolute failure if the media acquiesced on such rights. When hard questions needed to be asked about the Bush agenda in Iraq, the U.S. media went along for the ride. Its failure to stand up to the Republican game plan made it complicit in a lie that was used to trigger an illegal war that has led to wholesale human rights abuses.

It is not good enough to simply get the clip or the photo op. To maintain a functioning democracy, we need to ensure that the press hold politicians to account, and politicians, for their part, have to be willing to stand up to the questioning without giving intimidation or contempt for the nation's media.

Mine Disaster

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Kootenay--Columbia, I would like to express my sincere condolences to the family and friends of the four people who died on May 17 at the Sullivan mine: Doug Erickson, Bob Newcombe, Kim Weitzel and Shawn Currier.

Today, as emergency responders from across Canada gather together in Kimberley for a memorial service, I would like to pay special tribute to the contributions and sacrifices made by both professional and volunteer emergency responders who fulfill an essential need in our community. There are over 3,000 paramedics serving in British Columbia, including the 15 who service the people of our region.

I would like to express my gratitude and that of the people of Kootenay--Columbia, and of all Canadians, for the sacrifices made by paramedics and all other responders who provide emergency services. Their devotion to the good of their communities is deeply appreciated.

Multiple Births

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May 28 marked the 72nd anniversary of the birth of Dionne quintuplets in my riding, as well as the 2nd annual National Multiple Births Awareness Day. In Canada there are approximately 150,000 multiple birth children under the age of 20. The objective of National Multiple Births Awareness Day is to recognize that multiple birth individuals and families face many challenges that are not common to the general population.

In any family, the introduction of multiple birth children presents overwhelming physical, emotional and financial strains. As multiple birth children grow, they and their families face special challenges with day cares, schools, social situations, as well as an increased chance of health complications. As such, both supporting and improving the capacity for parents and children to cope is a crucial step in securing Canada's social foundations.

I would like to ask all hon. members to join me in supporting Multiple Births Canada as it works to increase awareness of the issues that face multiple birth individuals and their families.