Debates of Oct. 20th, 2009

National Defence Standing Committee

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. member. I assume that tweeting means it went on Twitter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct), be read the third time and passed.

Criminal Code

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise this afternoon to address Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct).

Like my colleagues reminded the House this morning, Bill S-4 on identity theft must not be confused with the attempt made by the Conservatives to steal the government's identity by issuing cheques with the Conservative Party's logo and colour. It is not quite the same thing, although there may be some similarity. We will look at the definitions later on and perhaps we will find that the Conservative members have indeed committed criminal offences.

As my colleague for Laval pointed out, if it turns out that it is indeed a criminal offence, government members might want to include a minimal sentence. But let us be serious, I want to talk about identity theft.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I am going to do so as soon as things quiet down here.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you can call members to order, so that they can be a little more attentive or respectful of those who are speaking. Perhaps you could do that.

Under the Criminal Code, the mere possession or collection of personal information is not a crime. Put that way, it may seem very obvious. However, there are flaws in the Criminal Code which facilitate identity theft. For example, the mere possession of personal information on one of my colleagues does not make me a criminal. Similarly, when I go to the convenience store and the clerk copies my debit or credit card, it is not considered a crime. Not at all. This is surprising, considering that credit or debit card theft often begins when we deal with someone whom we should normally trust. However, that is not always the case.

Bill S-4 has the advantage of correcting such flaws and of making it a crime to possess and collect personal information in certain situations.

The Bloc Québécois supports this legislation. Despite what the Minister of Justice said about it earlier, the Bloc Québécois prefers to take the time to debate bills. Indeed, bills are not perfect, and this is particularly true with this one. It will not solve everything, as we will see later on. Some problems will linger on in many ways. Moreover, we know that some of these problems can only be solved by other levels of government. For example, the Quebec government must get along with the federal government in order to settle the issue of identity theft. As we know, the federal government is not very inclined to get along with provincial governments, including the Quebec government. We can see it with a number of issues. It is not able to get along with other governments. This will make it even more difficult to implement this legislation, which requires other measures that do not necessarily come under the Criminal Code to settle this matter.

I said that the various levels of government had to work together to fight identity theft. But the Conservative government is incapable of working with the Government of Quebec. We have seen this in connection with the plan to help the manufacturing and forestry industries. We have seen how the goal of reforming federal institutions is to reduce Quebec's weight within Canada. We have also seen it in connection with the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. I do not know why I say the “implementation of the Kyoto protocol”. I should say the “non-implementation of the Kyoto protocol”. I have not seen any implementation of this international protocol, at least, with the Government of Quebec. This government is incapable of agreeing with other levels of government and has a great deal of difficulty agreeing with the Government of Quebec.

This may seem surprising when we consider the not-so-distant political allegiances of the Premier of Quebec, Jean Charest, who was a member of this House and a member of the Conservative Party. He was even the party leader. Now, because he is the Premier of Quebec, the Conservatives can no longer get along with one of their own. This is surprising, but it is unfortunately true, and I feel it is deplorable.

Generally speaking, the Conservative government is incapable of working with anyone other than itself. But we in the Bloc Québécois recognize that amending the Criminal Code is not enough to solve the problem of identity theft. Other measures need to be put in place, such as public education, which is extremely important. This is the best way to detect identity theft. For example, when we go into a corner store, the best way to detect identity theft is to watch what the clerk does with our credit card. When we go to a gas station to fill up the car, if we hand the attendant our credit card and wait for him to come back with it and a slip for us to sign, we are putting ourselves at risk.

Such things were done 5, 10, 20 or 30 years ago, but we must no longer do so today. In my opinion, the best thing to do is to get up and go with your credit card, hand it over, and watch every move the clerk makes with your credit card. We need to be more responsible with our things.

It is important to be careful. It is everyone's duty to remain informed, to question things, to protect themselves and to ask questions. When someone says he or she works for a business, we are entitled to have doubts. We are entitled to have doubts when that person does not have his employer's email address. We have the right to doubt someone who claims to have an employer whose telephone number, his land line, does not go into the company's main line. We are also entitled to have doubts when that individual gives us only a cell phone number. We are entitled to have doubts when that individual does not appear in the employee directory of the company or organization in question. We are entitled to have doubts and ask questions when the individual asks to meet at our home or office, instead of setting up an appointment in his own office. Even if that person has a business card or an email address with the logo of the company he claims to represent, we are entitled to have doubts and to ask questions, especially when we are giving that person confidential information.

Not only is it our right to be prudent, it is our duty. It is the duty of every consumer, client and individual who does not want to fall prey to identity theft. The people we disbelieve are entitled to be offended, but we are just as entitled not to worry too much about their feelings.

What is identity theft? I will take advantage of this opportunity to say a few things about it. Identity theft is deliberately taking another person's identity for the purpose of committing a fraudulent act, such as accessing the victim's finances or committing a crime or misdemeanour anonymously. According to that definition, when Conservative members hand out government funds by using cheques emblazoned with the Conservative Party logo, that is a kind of identity theft. We will explore that further.

Almost all of these definitions refer to the illegal use of another person's personal information. Personal information can be obtained in many ways—I talked about some of them earlier—from direct and not necessarily illegal methods, like going through people's trash, to highly sophisticated phishing techniques. Other ways to collect personal information include stealing identity cards or credit cards, redirecting mail, false pretences—pretending to be a person authorized to collect information, hacking into databases, using skimming devices to capture credit and debit card information, and stealing PINs by looking over a person's shoulder when he is entering his PIN or other information at an ATM. Some thieves have even been known to watch the cameras installed in places where people enter their PINs.

We also have to consider the inappropriate disposal of records. All offices must take even greater care than before and there must be appropriate records disposal, whether by shredding or other means.

Then there is the loss or theft of a PC or other data storage device such as a BlackBerry. Virtually everyone has the same password. We have to change our password as well. Even here in the House, most people have the same password because it is the easiest one to enter with one hand.

Another way to obtain personal information is through unscrupulous employees in certain organizations. We heard the examples of clerks at corner stores and attendants at gas stations. However, there are so many other ways to provide information. Sometimes, people naively provide information but those receiving the information are not honest and know very well how to use it.

The purpose of the bill is to combat identity theft such as the unauthorized collection and use of personal information for criminal purposes. Names, dates of birth, addresses, credit card numbers, social insurance numbers and any other personal identification numbers can be used to open a bank account, get a credit card, have mail forwarded, subscribe to a cell phone service, lease a vehicle or equipment, or even sell a house one does not own.

Three new core offences are created by Bill S-4 and they all carry a maximum sentence of five years.

The first offence, and it is crucially important, is obtaining and possessing identity information with the intent of using it in a misleading, deceitful or fraudulent manner in the commission of a crime. I believe that the key word is “obtaining”. A few years, when I learned that intentionally making a copy of a credit card, in a corner store for example, was not a criminal offence, I was quite surprised. It began in the corner store or the gas station and I believed that it absolutely had to change.

The second offence involves trafficking in identity information and targets those who give or sell information to a third party, either knowing that this information could be used for criminal purposes or being reckless about it.

The third offence involves the unlawful possession or trafficking in government-issued identity documents that have information pertaining to another person. The third aspect is added as a core offence. I will re-read it, but it seems to me that the cheques issued by the Conservative MPs on behalf of the government could be included when we talk about the unlawful possession or trafficking in government-issued identity documents that have information pertaining to another person. We might be tempted to consider that a criminal offence.

Other amendments have been made to the Criminal Code: the new offences of redirecting or causing to be redirected the mail of another person are created; the new offence of possession of a counterfeit Canada Post key is created; and additional forgery offences, such as trafficking in forged documents and possession of forged documents with the intent of using them, are created. The bill also redefines the offence of personation with the notion of “identity fraud“; specifies the meaning of the expression “fraudulently personates any person”; and adds the offence of possessing instruments for copying credit card data, in addition to the existing offence of possessing instruments for forging credit cards.

In addition, the bill introduces a new power that would allow the court to order the offender, as part of the sentence, to make restitution to a victim of identity theft or identity fraud for the expenses associated with rehabilitating their identity, such as the cost of replacement documents and cards and costs related to correcting their credit history.

The bill provides for two exemptions from prosecution for forgery: the first for an individual who produces false documents for secret government operations and the second for our public officers, that is to say our law enforcement officers, who create and use secret identities in the course of their duties. I repeat, Conservative MPs are not exempted.

However, first and foremost, there must be cooperation with Quebec and the provinces. I would say that is where the problem lies. The Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, maintains that the real solution to the problem of identity theft rests with civil proceedings. She said:

It is easier to prove and the procedures are easier for the citizens to understand. Small claims court, for example, could provide easily accessible measures that would put the brakes on the booming identity theft industry. Naturally, this means that the federal government must work closely with the provinces because much of what is happening in the area of identity theft falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that simply amending the Criminal Code will not solve the problem of identity theft.

A number of solutions to the problem of identity theft are in the hands of the provinces by virtue of their constitutional powers in matters of property and civil law. However, this Conservative government seems incapable of working with the provinces. There are many examples.

The Conservative government refused to work with Quebec and the provinces on a real assistance plan for the forestry and manufacturing sectors. The government rejected outright a series of unanimous demands by the National Assembly which requested, among other things, that the government implement the Kyoto protocol, abandon its plans for a single securities regulator—a plan rejected by all provinces except Ontario, abandon its reform of Parliament, and reinstate the court challenges program.

The last four items I mentioned were unanimous demands from the Quebec National Assembly. On four occasions, all 125 members of the Quebec legislature rose in the National Assembly to discuss and debate each one of these issues: the Kyoto protocol, the Quebec securities commission, parliamentary reform proposed by this government, and the abolition of the court challenges program by this government. On these four issues, the 125 members of the National Assembly, elected by the people of Quebec, were rebuffed by this government.

How can this government work with the Government of Quebec, when it dismisses every single unanimous request of the Quebec National Assembly, regardless of political allegiance or diversity of opinion? Yes, there are sovereignists in the National Assembly, but there are also federalists. And the government does not even listen to them. It does not listen to anyone.

How can we work with this government to implement a real strategy to eliminate identity theft?

The Conservative government has succeeded in upsetting all the provinces with its reform of seat allocations in the House of Commons. Senate reform has upset a majority of provinces as well. Equalization payment reform has been a bitter pill—and that is putting it mildly—for Quebec, Ontario and the provinces with offshore oil resources.

So the Conservative government, which should be working with the provinces to combat identity theft, has instead retreated to its corner and made a few changes that are necessary but that have a limited effect on the problem in question.

The government seems to be in more of a hurry to give the impression that it is doing something than to develop a coherent strategy for effectively combating this plague. And then, before handing the provinces new responsibilities for enforcing the Criminal Code, did it even bother to make sure that they had the resources to enforce the new identity theft provisions?

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to recognize the work accomplished by my colleague on this issue. She was the Bloc critic in this area and the concerns expressed by the commissioner should not be taken so lightly. I think she has identified the problem.

Identity theft is a very troubling issue. As a service provider, the federal government must also protect itself with regard to this issue. People use computer systems to access government services and give personal information that could make them very vulnerable without adequate protection. In fact, a few years ago, the Auditor General tabled a report on this, and the business case presented to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts was far from satisfactory. The system is very expensive and the government wants to abandon it after investing $1 billion in it.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on the importance of legislating in the area of identity theft. It is the corner stone, and a first step in this direction is important.

The member was also saying that the Bloc Québécois was in favour of studying this issue further, but the aspect regarding how the federal government manages the identity of citizens is also important, and I would like my colleague to elaborate on that.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges for her excellent question. It gives me the opportunity to add a couple of very important points that I did not have time to make earlier.

I heard the Minister of Justice say earlier that we must pass this bill quickly. However, we must take the time to debate things and see if more needs to be done. We need to be clearer about what we are trying to accomplish.

When it comes to identity theft, this government is far from setting an example, and that is frightening. I would remind the House that in 2006—not so long ago—the Auditor General estimated that there were 2.9 million extra social insurance cards out there. We are talking about nearly 3 million cards. No one would make such a fuss for 100,000. So, 3 million extra social insurance cards have been out there since 2006, and no one knows where they are. Yet a social insurance card can get you places. It allows you to open a bank account, to have a job, to get a driver's licence, even to get a passport. And there are 3 million out there, but no one knows where. That was in 2006.

Is this government setting a good example? No. More recently, on September 9, 2009, the front page of La Presse announced that 47,000 passports disappeared in 2008, four times more than in 2003. Is that normal? So we have 47,000 passports and 2.9 million social insurance cards. That is not all; there is more. You too will be frightened, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority lost some of its uniforms. This is serious. It lost a total of 1,127 articles, which were reported lost or stolen, including 91 badges, 78 shirts, 32 windbreakers and 25 sweaters, all of which had CATSA's logo on them. This is extremely worrisome, for is there any better way to usurp someone's identity than by taking the uniform of someone in a position of authority in air safety? That is remarkable.

In 2002 the RCMP investigated the theft of hundreds of forms from five Canada Immigration Centres and the unauthorized querying of a police data bank by Citizenship and Immigration Canada employees.

There are other examples, but I see I am running out of time.

In closing, the Conservative government is not setting the example it should.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, identity theft is clearly a booming business for criminals in this country. For a government that purports to be tough on crime, I would like to know where the educational campaign that it should be running is.

The Conservatives are spending millions of dollars on their feel-good advertising campaign to promote recovery plans, but it essentially looks like Conservative government advertising. If they are really concerned about doing something about identity theft other than getting this legislation passed, which we should try to get done today if we can, they should be diverting some of the money from their advertising campaign toward putting out some educational programs to tell members of the Canadian public what steps they should be taking to avoid having their identity stolen in the first place.

I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. This government should go ahead with an information campaign, but more importantly, it should come to an agreement with Quebec and the provinces to move forward and combat identity theft.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's contribution to the debate quite carefully, especially the part regarding the Privacy Commissioner's comment regarding small claims court and civil remedies being more appropriate than amendments to the Criminal Code.

I know the Privacy Commissioner and I spoke to her about the bill. I am a member of the justice committee. I would like the member to acknowledge that on May 28 Ms. Stoddart came out in favour of Bill S-4. In fact, she said, “We are pleased to see that the government is taking action on the growing problem of identity theft”.

I would like an acknowledgement that the chief commissioner of privacy for Canada is in favour of the bill.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that the privacy commissioner was against Bill S-4. I am trying to find what the commissioner said, which was essentially that it is not enough. What she said was “That's why I think we should look at civil sanctions that are very easy to prove and easy for citizens—”. That is what she said.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that Bill S-4 is necessary. We will vote in favour of this bill because it fills some major gaps. It is also important to note that the privacy commissioner said it is not enough. It is crucial to plug the holes and identify offences in the Criminal Code in order to stop certain practices, such as copying credit cards in corner stores. That must be done.

Many other things could be done much more easily and understandably using civil procedures, which would involve the provincial governments and Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all agreed on the need to move on identity theft because of the threat it poses to citizens across the board. My question for my hon. colleague is a follow-up to a question my NDP colleague asked earlier.

About the larger vision of where the government is going, I guess using the word “vision” when talking about Conservatives makes a pretty bizarre connection. The government can have mandatory minimum sentences for furniture theft but no plan to deal with the environment at a time of world crisis.

On identity theft, it is fine that we need to address the criminal aspects of it, but there is no long-term plan for the fact that millions of Canadian citizens put all kinds of information online through Facebook and Myspace. Kids put out information and there is no commitment from the government to move forward with an educational process. I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the need for—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will stop the hon. member there.

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert has only 30 seconds to respond.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry; I did not get the whole question, but I heard the preamble. The Conservative government lacks any kind of vision. Even when it comes to law and order, all it cares about are minimum sentences, but we know that those are rarely necessary.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

moved that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-42, which would further and severely restrict the availability of one of the most innovative but certainly controversial elements of our sentencing law, the conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Before describing the key provisions of the bill, please allow me to take a few moments to discuss the origin, history and rationale for conditional sentencing.

In June 1994, Bill C-41, Canada's first comprehensive reform and modernization of sentencing law and procedures since 1892 was introduced into this very House of Commons. Among its many elements was the creation of the conditional sentence of imprisonment. What this meant was that for a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years a court could and may order that it be served in the community under certain conditions and under supervision. It could only be done under the statutory conditions, such as the court being satisfied that the offender could serve the sentence in the community without endangering the population at large.

In other words, the conditional sentence was aimed at low-risk offenders sentenced to a provincial reformatory for a period of time of two years or less.

When Bill C-41 was tabled, Canada was in the midst of an unprecedented increase in the growth of prison populations, both provincially and federally. The federal inmate population, that is those serving periods of sentences of two years or more, was growing at twice the average long-term rate, with a 21.5% increase in the number of federal prisoners from 1990 to 1995. During that time, federal correctional costs exceeded $1 billion for the first time.

Canada's incarceration rate of 130 prisoners per 100,000 citizens was the fourth highest in the western world, which was quite alarming. Therefore, in the 1995 budget the then minister of finance for the then Liberal government had urged federal and provincial ministers responsible for justice to develop strategies to “for containing the growth of the inmate population and the associated corrections cost therewith”.

The Speech from the Throne in 1996 promised that the federal government would develop alternatives to incarceration for low-risk offenders, while focusing the more expensive “correctional resources” on the high-risk offenders.

This direction resulted in the establishment of a multi-year federal-provincial-territorial process called “The Corrections Population Growth Exercise”. Bill C-41, as it was introduced in that Parliament, and the conditional sentences in particular were seen as key to Canada's response to the significant growth in the number of prisoners.

A special study of the impact of conditional sentencing on prison populations was conducted by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics in 2001. In the words of highly noted and renowned Professors Julian Roberts and Thomas Gabor of the University of Ottawa, in a 2002 article in the Canadian Criminal Law Review, the results reveal:

—that conditional sentencing has had a significant impact on the rates of admission to custody, which have declined by 13% since its introduction. This represents a reduction of approximately 55,000 offenders who otherwise would have been admitted to custody.

In a subsequent article published in the British Journal of Criminology, Professor Roberts, by this time at Oxford University, described conditional sentences as leading to the most successful decarceration exercise in the history of common law sentencing reform.

While the availability of conditional sentences arguably achieved the policy of restraint in the use of incarceration, it did so at considerable cost to the public faith in sentencing and the sentencing process.

Controversy has surrounded the conditional sentencing regime since its introduction. The sentence is seen by some as being too soft a disposition for offenders who are custody bound because it is no more severe or intrusive than a sentence of probation. As the legislation reads, the differences between probation and a conditional sentence are barely noticeable. The courts, moreover, may be unwilling to hand down conditional sentences in most cases because of that very perception, that if probation would be an appropriate sentence then the conditional sentence is probably inappropriate.

Some critics of conditional sentencing go so far as to say that the stated goal of conditional sentences, which was to reduce incarceration rates, had failed due to the problems it presented to the judiciary in properly applying conditional sentences. In fact, there is a series of appellate jurisprudence on conditional sentencing, and I will not give a law lecture today, but I invite any hon. members who are interested in the courts struggling with conditional sentences to read the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of 2000 in R. v. Proulx.

However, conditional sentences have been appropriately used in many cases, but there have been too many examples of a failure by the courts to balance the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence with the desire to rehabilitate an offender.

Due to legislation that allowed for those individuals convicted of serious offences to receive conditional sentences such as house arrest, judges have been handing down sentences all too frequently. This practice has caused an enormous loss of confidence in the judicial system by the public. We are here to serve the public and when the public loses confidence in the administration of justice, all hon. members ought to be concerned. The answer to this problem is to give judges guidance in sentencing matters.

There has been more than one legislative attempt to do so and to provide greater guidance to judges who are considering a conditional sentence. Members who have been here longer than I will recall Bill C-9 introduced by this Conservative government on May 4, 2006, which ultimately passed on May 31, 2007. However, sadly, it did not pass unamended.

The bill, as it was originally written, would have ensured that conditional sentences like house arrest would not be allowed for serious and violent crimes. However, sadly the bill was amended by the opposition parties in the justice and human rights committee. The amendments preserved conditional sentences for crimes such as possession of weapons for dangerous purposes, kidnapping, arson and impaired driving causing bodily harm and death.

Criminals who commit these crimes should be punished appropriately and, in my view, serve their time in prison. By restricting these crimes from conditional sentencing eligibility, Canadians will have a justice system that imposes sentences that fit the severity of the offence, properly deters serious offences and helps keep our streets safe.

With that history lesson, it brings me to Bill C-42, the bill which under consideration before the House this afternoon. The bill would add new, clear provisions to the conditional sentencing sections of the Criminal Code to ensure once and for all that conditional sentences would not be available to individuals who committed serious violent and serious property crimes.

The proposed reforms would ban the use of conditional sentences for the following: offences for which the law prescribes a maximum sentence of 14 years or life; offences prosecuted by indictment and for which the law prescribes a maximum sentence of imprisonment of 10 years that result in bodily harm, involve the import/export, trafficking and production of drugs or involve the use of weapons.

It would also ban the use of conditional sentences for the following offences when prosecuted by indictment: prison breach; luring a child; criminal harassment; sexual assault; kidnapping and forceable confinement; trafficking in persons for material benefit; abduction; theft over $5,000; auto theft; breaking; entering with intent; being unlawfully in a dwelling house; and arson for fraudulent purpose.

It is expectation of our government that when this legislation comes into force the conditional sentencing regime will provide the correct equilibrium between the punitive and rehabilitative objectives of sentencing of low risk and less serious offenders.

In doing so, it should provide improved public confidence in the sanction and in the criminal justice system generally. It will send the correct message to both criminals and the law-abiding public at large that those who commit serious and violent crimes will no longer be entitled to conditional sentences such as house arrest.

Imagine an individual being convicted of arson and being able to serve the time in the comfort of that person's own home. It is barely imaginable. However, after the passage of this bill, this misguided sentencing practice will no longer occur in Canada.

On this side of the House we do not believe that house arrest is a suitable punishment for serious crime. Canadians I have spoken to do not believe so, either. Too many criminals, in my view, should never have been given conditional sentences in the first place. Moreover, too many convicts have breached the terms of those conditional sentences.

The solicitor general of Saskatchewan reports that 39% of criminals sentenced to house arrest were returned to jail for breaching the conditions of their sentences. Statistics Canada reported in 2006 that over 11,150 criminals were serving conditional sentences, 2,791 of whom were convicted of violent crimes, crimes against a person, 3,619 were convicted of property crimes and 2,062 were convicted of drug trafficking.

In my view and in the view of my colleagues on this side of the House, there are too many cases where individuals convicted of serious and violent crimes are serving conditional sentences. Criminals who commit these crimes should be punished appropriately and serve time in prison. By restricting these crimes from conditional sentencing eligibility, Canadians will have a justice system that imposes sentences that fit the severity of the crime, that properly deter others from committing serious offences and, most important, promotes safe streets and safe communities.

As I conclude my comments, I would like to remind all members of the House that they have a choice. A previous Liberal government introduced conditional sentencing that allowed serious and violent crimes to be eligible. In the last Parliament, the Liberal, New Democrat and Bloc opposition opposed previous legislation to end the practice of allowing serious and violent criminals to serve their sentences in the comfort of their own homes. However, this Conservative government is trying to ensure that serious criminals spend time where they belong: in jail.

Our government believes that the justice system should put the rights of law-abiders before the rights of lawbreakers. Whatever the leader of the official opposition may say when the cameras are on him, the record shows that the Liberal opposition members are soft on crime.

We call on the Liberals, both in this House and in the Senate, and all parliamentarians of all political stripes to listen to Canadians, to listen to their constituents and to walk the walk, not just talk the talk when it comes to being tough on crime. It is time for all parliamentarians to get behind the government's urgently needed safe street and safe community agenda, and for that reason I urge all hon. members to support Bill C-42.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member opposite understands how young people often enter the world of crime. They often start out with automobile-related offences, or joy rides. That still goes on. Or these kids might party in a vacant cottage. I am not saying that this is okay. I would be disappointed to learn that my son had gotten involved in something like that, but I know many people who have the same education as I do, or more, who took good care of their children, and who found them in similar situations, because of peer pressure.

Does he really think prison is where we want to send them, since it is widely known as a crime school?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoy the members interventions, both in the House and in the justice and public safety committees on which we both serve.

The hon. member will know that there is an act of this Parliament called the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It is part of the Criminal Code but separate and distinct from the Criminal Code and it applies to individuals who run afoul of criminal court procedures but have not yet reached the age of majority, which is 18 years. Nothing in the bill affects any provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, so he need not be concerned.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert has also served as defence counsel, so he would be aware that there are many occasions when he would be representing people in court who have run into unfortunate circumstances. They could come from a very underprivileged family or be a child who was abused and is living on the street. There could be occasion where they could be involved in a break and enter, which the hon. member listed as one of the crimes he would like immediate prison, or theft over $5,000. For example, somebody could steal one of these high-end bikes off the street and it could be well worth over $5,000.

I am asking if the hon. member sincerely believes that in ever circumstance the offender, no matter what the circumstances, should be put in prison without any due consideration whatsoever by the court to the circumstances of the crime?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. Earlier on in my legal career I did practise criminal law, primarily as an ad hoc prosecutor but also as a criminal defence lawyer from time to time.

In answer to her question, it is clear to me and certainly clear to the members on this side of the House that the rights of law-abiders ought to be given precedence over the rights of lawbreakers.

With respect to what she suggested are minor offences, break and enter and theft over $5,000, I would ask her if she has ever been the victim of a property crime. I have been and it is very invasive and intrusive for an individual to come into our home when we are home or even if we are not home and rummage around and go through our personal effects looking for whatever might be of value that they might be interested in, such as CDs, DVDs, big-screen TVs. It is very invasive to have an individual come into one's homes and cause damage and steal.

The short answer to her question is that the bill would address what Canadians are telling us, which is that the rights of victims and law-abiders require precedence over the rights of those who break the law.