Debates of Oct. 26th, 2009

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kenora was elected to the House last year. Since he arrived here he has taken on many of these issues and has shown a great deal of interest. His riding of Kenora is very much like the riding of Leeds--Grenville, and not just in rural ridings but across the country people are concerned about crime.

This is a bill that my constituents find to be very timely. They want to see proper penalties in place for those who commit crimes. They do not want conditional sentences to be used because they do not feel that they act in any way as a deterrent. These are the types of things I was thinking of when I talked about the cost to society in not passing the bill.

I know that the member's constituents want to see the bill passed, as do mine.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member has been here from the beginning of the debate, so I know that he is looking at this carefully. The issue is one of cost versus implementation of the law, as the member is quite aware. I want to know whether the member believes that we should make changes to the Criminal Code if we know that we are unable to provide the funds necessary to enforce those changes.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents, and I am sure his constituents in Mississauga South, feel that we should spend the money to implement these changes.

I am just looking at some of the numbers that were provided before, when Bill C-9 was going through the House. The cost, ultimately, was amended to $10.7 million. However, the cost for the original Bill C-9 was $21.7 million. So, I know that Canadians expect their tax dollars to be used wisely, and I know that my constituents expect us to spend money on these types of things.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I asked a financial question because I have a bill, Bill C-201, that deals with veterans. The first thing out of the mouths of the Conservatives was “What is it going to cost?”, not what is best for the veterans, but what it is going to cos. They did not care about veterans and their families and the issue of what my bill would do to help them. All they asked about was the cost.

So, I will ask once again. Has he got the evidence to prove that this would actually prevent crime, and what is the financial cost of the bill?

He said some of the provinces would pay for it, and that is true. However, would the money then be transferred from the federal government to the provinces to pay for that?

With a burgeoning deficit, where is the money going to come from, increased taxes or cuts to services?

I have no problems with him debating the issue of crime and punishment, but someone has to pay the financial costs for this. Yes, there is a cost when people commit crime, but there is also a cost when we put them behind bars for extended periods of time.

So, how much would it cost and where is the evidence to support his conclusions that this would actually prevent crime?

These are two very basic questions.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member has asked the question about the cost. I do not know whether members might have asked him how much his bill would cost. What is the cost in terms of dealing with child pornography?

Once again, I go back to the real question. What is the cost to society of not taking these types of action? What is the cost to society of not putting in place the deterrents to stop these types of action?

I have laid out that the original bill, as amended, was $10.7 million and that Bill C-9, as it was originally introduced, was $21.7 million.

There will be some costs, but these are costs that the people of Canada expect the government to pay.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today in the House to address Bill C-42 regarding conditional sentences.

This legislation fulfills another campaign promise we made in the 2008 election by seeking to restrict the availability of conditional sentencing to ensure that those who commit serious crimes, including serious property offences, are not eligible for house arrest. This is a bill that is desperately needed as we attempt to send a strong message to criminals that serious crime will result in serious time.

My riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale has been near the centre of a violent gang war in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Earlier this year hearing reportings of several shootings in a given week was not uncommon.

Many people, some gang members and some not, have been murdered or seriously injured in our streets this year. This gang warfare appears to be fuelled mostly by the illicit drug trade as rival gangs battle for a share of the profits.

As I am sure all members can appreciate, my constituents are upset and concerned about the extreme violence in our normally peaceful community. They want to know what action we are taking to keep illegal drug producers and pushers off the streets and behind bars. They want to know why criminals convicted of serious drug offences such as running a grow house, who are sometimes repeatedly convicted seem to be back on the street within days of their conviction.

They do not understand why someone convicted of serious crimes, offences often linked to the drug trade or involving a weapon or causing bodily harm, could serve literally no time in prison.

Bill C-42 is part of our answer. Our bill will close the loophole created by the opposition in the last Parliament by ensuring that the time served for all serious crimes is ineligible to be served under house arrest.

The proposed law will clearly state the offences for which the courts cannot hand down a conditional sentence.

This will ensure that the courts use conditional sentences cautiously and more appropriately, reserving them for less serious offences that pose little risk to community safety.

Bill C-42 is needed because our government's previous attempt to prevent the use of house arrest for serious crimes was seriously and significantly weakened by opposition amendments.

In addition to maintaining the existing criteria limiting the availability of house arrest, Bill C-42 would make all offences punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life ineligible for house arrest. It would make all offences prosecuted by indictment, as well as those punishable by a maximum of 10 years, those resulting in bodily harm or involving the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs, and those involving the use of weapons, ineligible for house arrest. It would also make specific serious property and violent offences ineligible for house arrest.

Here are some of the other offences for which house arrest would be eliminated when prosecuted by indictment: prison breach, luring a child, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping or forcible confinement, trafficking in persons where there is a material benefit, abduction, theft over $5,000, auto theft, breaking and entering with intent, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, or arson for fraudulent purposes.

When I read this list, I am reminded that the last time we debated this issue, these were all crimes for which the Liberals felt that house arrest might be an entirely appropriate punishment. Well, this is no longer the case. Bill C-42 will send the message that drug crime, gun crime and other serious crime will not be tolerated in Surrey or anywhere else in Canada. It will send a message to those engaged in the illegal drug trade in my community that their crimes will no longer be treated with a slap on the wrist.

This bill and other initiatives to come will ensure that cases of serious fraud are treated as serious offences, which includes the proposal in Bill C-42 to prohibit the use of conditional sentences in such cases.

It is also disturbing to note that by promoting the definition of serious personal injury at the expense of the government's approach, the opposition parties are saying that only violent offences are serious and that the limits on the use of conditional sentences should apply only to such offences.

Do I need to remind them of the extent of the frauds recently reported in the media?

Unfortunately, it has become very plain to me that our Conservative Party is the only party that has been willing to stand on principle and ensure that the sentence matches the crime. Opposition parties stall criminal justice reform legislation here in the House or their friends stall it in the Senate.

It is no exaggeration to say that in this Parliament and the last, we have been opposed every step of the way by the Liberals or the NDP and the Bloc as we have attempted to pass even modest reforms to sentencing laws. For instance, the opposition Liberals watered down our bill, Bill C-9 on house arrest, in the last Parliament. Even so, I note that since taking office in 2006, our Conservative government has been making progress on some criminal justice reform, including house arrest, despite the minority situation.

We provided the funds and introduced the legislation that will support our law enforcement bodies and justice system as they attempt to crack down on gun violence and the illegal drug trade. In our first budget, we provided the funds to hire an additional 1,000 RCMP officers and new federal prosecutors to focus on such law enforcement priorities as drugs, corruption, and border security, including gun smuggling.

Also, in our 2006 budget we provided the funds to hire an additional 400 Canada border services officers, to properly arm all of these officers, and to improve border infrastructure and upgrade technology. Our efforts have improved the ability of our Border Services Agency to crack down on the smuggling of firearms and illegal drugs, which are significant problems in our community.

In 2007, we launched the national anti-drug strategy, focusing on prevention, enforcement and treatment. Budget 2007 also provided $64 million over two years to address these priorities.

In budget 2008, we provided $400 million for the police officers recruitment fund, allowing the provinces to recruit an additional 2,500 front-line officers. My province of British Columbia received $53 million of this funding.

In terms of legislation, during the last Parliament we were able to pass bills that addressed the issues of gun and gang violence. Among the resulting measures were increases in the mandatory minimum sentences for various crimes involving firearms and the toughening of dangerous offender provisions in the Criminal Code.

We also imposed a reverse onus in order for those charged with firearms offences to qualify for bail, and we toughened sentences for street racing and increased the maximum sentence to be life in prison. However, our Conservative government knows that further federal action is necessary to help address the gang violence we have seen on the streets in my community recently.

Our public safety minister, our justice minister and our Prime Minister have all travelled to the Lower Mainland in British Columbia to hear directly from police officials and victims groups about the recent violence. We have listened and responded by introducing the following legislation.

Bill C-14, now law, targets gangs and organized crime groups. Any murder committed in a gang-related context is deemed first degree murder. A new criminal offence carrying a mandatory prison sentence has been created for drive-by shootings.

Bill C-15 cracks down on serious drug crimes, such as trafficking and running large cannabis grow operations or crystal meth labs. Narcotics producers will now face mandatory prison sentences.

In addition, Bill C-25 eliminates the two-for-one credit in sentencing for time spent in pre-trial custody. Of course, the bill that we are debating today, Bill C-42, would eliminate house arrest for all serious crimes, not just some of the offences the opposition begrudgingly allowed us to address in the last Parliament.

For the reasons I have given, I would urge my colleagues in the House to support this bill unanimously in order to expedite its passage.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is something that does not come up very often. We all know that as members of Parliament, we quite often hear from the public, from people who are concerned that criminals sometimes have more rights than do the actual victims of crime.

There is another issue that I would like the member to comment on, if he could. I have relatives and friends who are policemen, and one thing they tell me from time to time is that they work very hard to catch criminals, and they go through the court system, and while many criminals sometimes get off on technicalities, the ones that are convicted quite often get out on early parole or other loopholes in the justice system. They tell me that it very distinctly creates low morale for the police and the RCMP.

I wonder if the member could comment on how this bill, if passed, could maybe help in that case as well.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also hear those concerns from people in my community.

Police officers work hard to find and arrest dangerous offenders in our communities, and to their shock and dismay they see these same offenders back on the street sometimes days and weeks later. They shake their heads and ask themselves why they are even doing this.

The discretion that allows these individuals to be back on the street so quickly is definitely a case for concern. It is also demoralizing for many police officers, especially when they consider the amount of paper work and other steps that need to be taken to get these people before a judge in the first place.

I completely concur with my colleague's concerns. I am confident that the reforms we are making here will make a tremendous difference because we will be taking these people off the streets.

In my previous work as an attorney, I would often hear individuals say that house arrest was a joke. Offenders could be on the street, do whatever they want, and if anybody stopped them they simply had to say they were on their way to a job interview or to a doctor's appointment. They essentially had all the freedoms that they would otherwise have if they were not behind bars.

That is the concern that Canadians are expressing to us. They feel that if somebody commits a crime they have to do the time. Canadians feel that the slap on the wrist that criminals have been getting up until this point is simply not acceptable.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to stand in the House once again on behalf of the constituents of the great Kenora riding. I am honoured to speak during second reading of Bill C-42, which proposes to limit the use of conditional sentencing for serious offences.

The Criminal Code allows for conditional sentences, also referred to as house arrest, to be imposed when the following conditions are met: the offence is not punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence, the court imposes a sentence of less than two years, the court is convinced that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community, and the court must be satisfied that the conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

Finally, the offence must meet the following criteria: it is not a serious personal injury offence under section 752; it is not a terrorism offence; and it is not a criminal organization offence, prosecuted by indictment and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more.

Even if all the criteria are met, the sentencing judge may decide not to impose a conditional sentence. Bill C-42 aims to eliminate the reference to serious personal injury offences and end the use of conditional sentences for indictable offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years to life. The same would apply for indictable offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years where these offences result in: bodily harm; involve the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs; or involve the use of a weapon.

Furthermore, in order to cover serious offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, Bill C-42 seeks to eliminate the use of conditional sentences for the following reasons: prison breach, luring a child, criminal harassment, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, theft over $5,000, breaking and entering a place other than a dwelling house, being unlawfully in a dwelling house with intent, and arson for fraudulent purposes. These are obviously very serious crimes that this government intends to get tough on.

I am well aware that my colleagues in the House might ask themselves if it is necessary to amend the conditional sentencing regime once again, especially given that the last amendments to this regime came into effect on December 1, 2007. To them, I would say yes. The concept of serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code of Canada was developed in the context of dangerous offenders.

However, the opposition parties borrowed it as a limit on the use of conditional sentences when they got together to modify the government's original proposal as laid out in Bill C-9. While the courts have, since the last amendments came into effect, distinguished between the interpretation of the definition of serious personal injury offences and the contexts of conditional sentences and dangerous offenders, the fact remains that there are serious shortcomings.

Whether it be in the context of dangerous offenders or in the context of conditional sentences, only sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and aggravated sexual assault are deemed to be serious personal injury offences. I would like to reassure my colleagues that although Bill C-42 proposes to eliminate the reference to serious personal injury offences as laid out in section 742.1, it would still ensure that conditional sentences would not be available for such indictable sexual offences.

However, as we have previously heard, robbery, for example, is not treated as a serious personal injury offence in all cases. This is all the more surprising, given that the offence of robbery, under section 343 of the Criminal Code, includes elements of violence. The same goes for the offences of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

It is also worrying to see that the opposition parties, who favour the definition of serious personal injury offences instead of the proposed government approach, are of the view that only violent offences are serious crimes, and that only violent offences should be subject to limits on the use of conditional sentences.

Need I remind them of the extent of the fraud cases reported in the media recently. Serious white collar crimes that had serious impact on people's lives. Yet, the definition of serious personal injury offences cannot ensure that conditional sentences will not be available in cases of fraud or theft over $5,000. The bill, along with upcoming initiatives, will ensure that cases involving serious fraud are treated as serious offences. They are treated within the law for the serious offences that they are.

Conditional sentences were created for less serious crimes. It is for this reason that it is not available or that it not be available for offences punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence, or for offences for which a sentence of two years or more is imposed. The government is attentive to the concerns of Canadians who no longer wish to see conditional sentences used for serious crimes, whether it is a violent physical crime or a serious property crime. For the reasons I just explained, I would urge my colleagues in the House to give the bill their unanimous support.

I want to address by way of summary some of the key points. Conditional sentences are not available for all offences. There are several criteria for their use. For example, conditional sentences are not available for sentences with a mandatory prison sentence and are not available if the sentence would be more than two years imprisonment.

Bill C-42 fulfills this 2008 platform commitment by restricting the availability of conditional sentences of imprisonment to ensure that serious crimes, including serious property offences, are not eligible for house arrest.

I encourage all members to take a serious moment to pause around what this legislation is intended to achieve. We want to make it clear that when it comes to serious crimes, this government is getting serious with the people who need to do the time.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. The hon. Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order.

Introduction of Bills

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to rise in the chamber to address the matter that was raised on Thursday by the member for Joliette concerning the introduction of Bill C-52.

It was correctly pointed out to the House that details of that bill were released prior to the actual tabling of the bill while the bill was on notice. Members have the right and the duty to see the bill first.

One of the things I share with you, Mr. Speaker, is a deep respect for the House, its traditions and its rules. The release of those details was a mistake, and for that I apologize to the House without reservation. I have indicated to my colleagues, and I will be indicating to them, that this should never happen again.

As for myself, it is my sincere hope to introduce many more bills in the House, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that this will never happen again.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. Minister of Justice. Unless I hear further, I believe this matter should therefore be closed and I will not need to come back with a ruling on the question of privilege raised the other day, and I am thankful for that as well.

Questions and comments on the speech we have just heard. I call first on the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Ending Conditional Sentences for Property and Other Serious Crimes Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his enlightening speech and the thought he put into the role of conditional sentencing in our justice system and its limitations with respect to the types of convicts and persons who have come into the criminal justice ought to have it apply to them.

I know he is a lawyer, as am I, and relying on his legal experience, could he provide some comment, anecdotal or otherwise, as to situations where perhaps this process has not worked out properly and, more specifically, if he could comment, based on his experience as a lawyer, as to how this bill fits into the government's overall law and order strategy.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not practise a lot of criminal law. I have very little experience in that area but from my days in law school, from having several colleagues who practise in this area and from having a number of friends who are with the RCMP and the Ontario Provincial Police over the years working in communities, I share the concerns expressed earlier that we need to get tough on perpetrators of serious crimes, such as personal injury and degrees of theft which ruin, in many cases, people's lives. It is important that citizens and constituents of our respective ridings have assurances that people will not be out on house arrest for crimes that have significantly impacted a person, often a family, a neighbourhood or a community.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague repeatedly stands in the House in a very humble way and asserts that he represents the constituents of Kenora, and it is obvious that he is there for them.

If he cannot really comment on it as a criminal lawyer, could he comment on what he is hearing in his community as he is out there often? Is this the kind of legislation that they want to see. What other kind of feedback is he getting on the justice agenda that this government has?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for recognizing the important contributions I make in this House.

Yes, the folks in the great Kenora riding take this issue, as they do all justice issues, very seriously. There is always a balance that we need to be aware of in terms of what we are trying to achieve.

However, as the discussion alluded to earlier, which I found quite interesting, what are the challenges with respect to the costs? The costs are of the crimes themselves. When we start talking about drug trafficking and human trafficking, the impact on families, on the health care system, rehabilitation treatment, and in those orders, it becomes very clear that there is a tremendous cost to the individual, to the family, to the neighbourhood, to the community, to the riding and to the region.

This bill, like many of our justice bills, would replace the cost of crime with doing time, time in jail for perpetrators of serious crimes. That is something I think most people, not just in the great Kenora riding, but Canadians throughout the country share as a concern.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to reiterate some of the points my friend, the previous speaker, outlined in regard to conditional sentencing.

It is important to note that conditional sentences are not available for all offences and there are several criteria for their use. For example, conditional sentences are not available for offences with a mandatory prison sentence. They are also not available if a sentence would be more than two years of imprisonment.

Bill C-42 fulfills a 2008 platform commitment by seeking to restrict the availability of conditional sentences of imprisonment to ensure that serious crimes, including serious property offences, are not eligible for house arrest.

In addition to the existing criteria limiting the availability of conditional sentences, this bill would also make all offences that are punishable by a maximum of 14 years or life ineligible for a conditional sentence. It would make all offences prosecuted by indictment and punishable by a maximum of 10 years if they result in bodily harm; involve the import, export, trafficking or production of drugs, or involve the use of weapons, ineligible for a conditional sentence.

It also would make specific serious property and violent offences punishable by 10 years and prosecuted by indictment ineligible for a conditional sentence. For example, it would specifically exclude criminal harassment, trafficking in persons, theft over $5,000 and the proposed offence of auto theft, as well as some others. Due to the criteria not previously mentioned, the reference to serious personal injury would be eliminated.

One of the interesting anecdotes that we might want to discuss here today, especially the appropriateness of it, is what this bill would eliminate. We know there has been mention of persons convicted of the sale of large amounts of drugs and who became eligible for parole after a very short period of time, in other words, anywhere between one-sixth and one-third of their sentence. I think most Canadians find that type of sentence arrangement no longer acceptable to our society.

We have people selling drugs in front of schools and in places where young people hang out, and they are making our neighbourhoods very unsafe. Parents are worried about their children when they should not be worried. There was a time when we would send our children to school and we would not worry that they were being preyed upon by drug dealers who would hook our kids on things like crack, cocaine and ecstasy.

If these drug dealers get caught and go to prison, we assume they will be there for a long time because they have taken the most precious thing we have, our children, and have misused and abused them, perhaps not physically right at the time but they have, because we know these drugs ruin lives and ruin relationships between parents and children.

We send these people to jail not just as a punishment. We send them to jail to think about what they have done and to, hopefully, learn a better trade and increase their literacy. We want to give them an opportunity to fully realize the severity of their crimes but serving one-sixth of a four or five year sentence certainly does not avail them to try to improve their lives, to bring home to them the seriousness of the crime they committed and to show them how important it is for us all to be more responsible in our communities.

Many people think we should be more severe but I think we need a balanced approach, which is what this government is all about, balancing the needs of our communities and the needs of our citizens against the needs of the individual, and to see where those two needs can come together and bring about an appropriate resolution.

The problem with the current law, as a result of the opposition amendment, is that the definition of serious personal injury offences lacks the needed clarity. It is not certain whether particular serious property or serious violent offences, such as wilful mischief, endangering life, causing bodily harm by criminal negligence or serious drug offences would be interpreted as serious personal injury offences and, therefore, in eligible for conditional sentences in all cases.

What we find sometimes with well thought out legislation that is put before this House, there is an immediate need on some people's part to throw out amendments. However, these amendments are not always well thought out and the results of the amendments actually make the situation worse than it was before. Clarity is needed and I believe Bill C-42 delivers just that kind of clarity.

As a member of the public safety and national security committee and also the justice and human rights committee, we, at various times, when we are looking at issues surrounding crime and punishment and its effects on society, all too often see people, small special interest groups, who lose sight of the fact that illicit drugs are pervasive throughout our whole society and that they are changing us in a way that we do not want to be changed and do not need to be changed, in a way that is negative to the very core of some of our social beliefs and our work ethic, what we believe to be right and wrong.

Before we go about changing things, we need to look at the end result. We need to look at what would occur as a result of these amendments, what would occur if we began to retract and be a more permissive society, accepting things that, quite frankly, could injure the very base of our society, which happens to be the family.

It brings us, of course, full circle to the need to protect those among us who need protection, such as our children and our youth, the most vulnerable among us. We need to send a message to those who would endanger the safety and well-being of our children and those who would lead our children and other persons in our society who feel weak and succumb to the need to take drugs and other substances, that there is a cost to that and the cost will be their personal freedom.

When these individuals are convicted and sent to our prison system, we need to ensure they are there long enough to realize the error of their ways and to avail themselves of the programs that are available for them, whether they themselves are addicted, whether they need upgrades to their education or whether they need to learn a trade.

Canada's largest federal penitentiary is located in my community, which I have visited quite often. Despite some of the negativity we hear, there are opportunities for people to have a better life.

With the bill we have before us, we are concentrating on the fact that we do not want people to have early parole when they have committed serious, grievous offences. At the same time, however, we want to ensure that those people do get the help they need. I can assure the House that places like Warkworth Institution do give inmates the ability to get a secondary school diploma and to carry on further than that if they wish.

There is a program at that institution to refurbish Canada's large military trucks. People at the institution can get their sandblaster's certificate. I was speaking to some of the instructors and the number of recidivists over the last 10 or 15 years can be counted on one hand. Many of inmates have jobs before they even leave prison because the instructors have connections. The people who are availing themselves of that opportunity do not have a need to carry on their anti-social behaviour and life of crime.

In addition, there is a program for first nations. First nations people in Warkworth Institution are able to avail themselves of the healing circles to help get them back on track and help address their specific social needs. At the same time, they can learn traditional ways of earning a livelihood which bring them closer to their ancestry. They can rekindle a connection with their country, with their land, with their people, with all of us.

We need to look at this bill in a holistic way. We need to look at it not as crime and punishment but as an opportunity. When people go astray, we need to give them an opportunity to learn a better way of living, to be more responsible and to be more respectful of their fellow people when they get out of jail.

It is high time this country looked at our Criminal Code and brought it into the new millennium. We need to make it more responsive not only to the society it is designed to serve, but to the people who commit crimes. We need to offer them an opportunity to get better, because they do have an illness. It is anti-social behaviour and it needs a system that addresses it.

This is an appropriate time to talk about what this government is doing with regard to those who find themselves in jail and in the penal system. We recognize that many of them are addicted to drugs or alcohol. Some suffer from various degrees of mental illness. Our government and the public safety committee are looking at not only Canada's penal system and prisons, but the systems in other countries that share a similar social background to see how we can better treat the people in our jails so that they do not have a need to go back to a life of crime.

We have to look at the whole system in a holistic way. We need to make sure that we do not just concentrate on the punishment aspect, because this does address that. There is no talking around it. It does address that part of it. At the same time it recognizes that our penal system provides an opportunity for those people who we say must spend longer in jail to find a way to improve their personal life, improve their education, reflect upon what they have done and look at how they can become a better person. This government wants to afford them an opportunity to have a better life.

While Bill C-42 looks as though it is strictly the punishment aspect, because of the various other backup systems in our whole judicial system--and some people would call it the crime and punishment system, but I refer to it as our judicial system--it offers people an opportunity to get better, to be better and to become better citizens.

First we must address the reason they find themselves in that predicament. We cannot give them a slap on the wrist and tell them what they did was not that bad and that we will open the door for them. We need to let them know that they committed a serious crime and that they will spend significant time reflecting on it. At the same time we need to let them know that we will provide them with an opportunity to make a better life so they will not end up back in prison.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the silence of the Conservative member, the Department of Justice has confirmed that the passage of Bill C-42 would result in an increase in the prison population by over 5,000 inmates. There is no room in the provincial institutions now. Therefore, expansion and/or the construction of new facilities would be required, at a cost of $2.5 billion to $3 billion.

I saw a recent report in the press about recidivism rates. People who commit crimes, not serious ones, not drug crimes, et cetera, but dangerous driving or fraud over $1,000, are actually less likely to reoffend under conditional sentencing than if they were in that crime school called prison. I wonder if the member is aware of that.

Is he aware of any other information that talks to the recidivism rate of first time offenders of not the most serious crimes but the examples I gave him?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this place watch the news. Horrific accidents are caused by people who commit the offence of dangerous driving.

In answer to my colleague's question, quite a few years ago a Liberal government brought in the one-sixth provision to reduce prison costs.

The hon. member mentioned that sending people to jail is going to be a terrible cost. Maybe we should not send anyone to jail if we are worried about the cost. Society is telling us something. There is a cost to crime. A previous speaker talked about that cost. There is a cost to the lives of families, the relationship between parents and children who are hooked on drugs, the relationship between a husband and wife when one or the other gets hooked on drugs. It can happen so insidiously. Kids wonder what the harm is when they buy a marijuana cigarette in front of the school. They fail to realize that it might be laced with ecstasy. Some drug dealer may get some other kids in the class to sell a little piece of crack cocaine. There is the real cost. The real cost is the ruination of lives.

The people who want to commit these crimes need to be put in a place where they can think about what they have done and have a chance at rehabilitation.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous amount of respect, as we all do in the House, for those who serve our communities on the front lines as police officers. My colleague did a fabulous job in his former career making sure that the public in his area was protected. That is what he is doing here today in talking about this legislation that would protect people not just in his riding, but across this country.

My colleague is a member of the justice committee and the public safety committee. I would like to know what he is hearing in his own riding about this particular bill regarding conditional sentencing.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, referring to what I was speaking about just a few minutes ago, Canada's largest federal penitentiary is in my riding. The folks there are very accepting of the fact that we need these kinds of institutions.

My hon. friend from Mississauga South conveniently left out some things, but the Minister of Public Safety has assured the House that we have the capacity. Based on this bill and others, we currently have the capacity in our prison system to handle that. We are improving on that. We are improving on our ability to treat people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. We are bound and determined to improve the treatment of mental health in our prisons or look at alternate methods of doing it.

The average person who lives in Northumberland—Quinte West believes, as does the average Canadian, that one-sixth of a sentence for a serious infraction of selling drugs not just to society but to our children is deserving of more than a few weeks or months in jail. That is the bottom line.

This piece of legislation is the kind of legislation the people of Canada are hungry for. We are going to provide it to them.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

As my colleague from Burlington mentioned, before being elected to this place, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West was a long-time police officer who worked hard on the front lines. From a law enforcement perspective, why is this bill so important?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are trained as police officers to go out, get the evidence, put together a good case and give it to the crown attorney, and whatever happens after that, we accept. We have done our part. We have total respect for our judicial system.

However, it does whittle away at police officers when time after time people commit serious crimes, such as the ones I mentioned before, trafficking in narcotics, and there seems to be a revolving door. After months and in some cases years of investigation in order to prove the offence, the courts have a trial, the person is found guilty and after sometimes millions of precious taxpayers' dollars have been spent, thousands of hours of investigation have taken place and in many cases the lives of officers have been put at risk for undercover investigations, they find out that the criminal, after availing himself or herself of all the benefits of our judicial system, is out on the street in a few months. That makes it very difficult at times. We still do the job but it does make it difficult.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated that the minister has commented on the cost of the expansion and that there is enough space. The Department of Justice, which is responsible for these matters, said in today's media that, in fact, the jails cannot absorb another 5,000 inmates. There is not enough room. It will take an expansion costing $2.5 billion to $3 billion to accommodate the increase in the prison population. Inmates will be doubling up in cells.

The member knows that, so why is he misleading the House by saying something different?