Mr. Speaker, I remain convinced that conditional sentences are an extremely important tool that should be given to judges to use in many cases of a first offence. Conditional sentences have practically replaced what used to be known as suspended sentences, even though suspended sentences still exist in the Criminal Code. I seem to remember that judges were starting to hand down suspended sentences when I began practising law. In 1966 at least, suspended sentences already existed, and judges were very happy to have such a tool, because it meant that they could dangle a sword of Damocles over the heads of people they set free.
I remember that I used to explain to my convicted clients that the term “suspended sentence” was very appropriate. The judge had suspended the sentence he could have handed down. He had suspended it on certain conditions: if the convicted offender met those conditions, the judge would not have the right to hand down the sentence he had suspended, but if the offender did not meet one of those conditions or committed another offence, he would be brought before the same judge, who would quite often impose a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. Quite often, too, it would be a life sentence.
But from an administrative standpoint, if I had been a judge, I would have used this tool like some judges I knew well. In Quebec, people of my generation will remember Judge O'Meara, who was a judge of great integrity. He was remarkable. But when people were brought before him, he always sentenced them to prison. In the vast majority of cases, that was enough. It was a warning from the court and it scared the offender, who did not come back. I never had any statistics, but it was said at the time that 90% of offenders never came back. The remaining 10% were the ones we had trouble with, the ones who were back in court repeatedly. So the system worked.
For it to work, once the individual was arrested, he had to be brought before the same judge, who was already playing another role or might be going to another jurisdiction. Things got so complicated that, in the end, this requirement was not enforced. Since most of the time, people were brought before the judge because they had committed another offence, it was actually the second judge who took into account the fact that they had received a suspended sentence and who handed down a stiffer sentence for the second offence.
When conditional sentences were first being handed out—I was reminded of this again recently in Montreal, where there was a case involving a young man—I said that this would replace suspended sentences. And that is what happened. The advantage of conditional sentences is that the sentence is already determined.
I cannot get over what I heard the Minister of Justice saying this afternoon in this House. He talked about these white-collar criminals who defrauded people by extorting exorbitant amounts of money and who will be serving their sentence in the comfort of their own living room. Let us get real. Conditional sentences can only apply to sentences under two years and therefore to less serious cases.
I am somewhat familiar with the prison system and I know that the majority of people there are unfortunate souls. I can assure you that the comfort of their living room would seem like a rather uncomfortable cell to us and quite often even more uncomfortable than the totally sanitized and controlled cells found in the prisons. When I hear about people in the comfort of their own living room, with their CD collection and their big screen television and so on, we are not talking about the type of people you find in prison.
I was saying that again this morning in another case.
The hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert must also know that recently in Ontario, 39% of inmates were diagnosed with mental illness. This corresponds to what someone was saying before about the intellectual level of the majority of these offenders who commit petty crimes. The advantage of conditional sentences is that the length of the sentence is known. When an offence is committed, the offender goes to prison. It is simple. He finishes his sentence there.
There is not a single study out there to show that conditional sentences did not achieve the intentions of the legislation. In the Criminal Code, 33 pages deal with sentences in general. The government seems to forget that the first sections set out the major objectives and principles. I will read section 718 to illustrate that the goal is for a sentence to strike a balance, which will vary according to the offence and according to the people who are convicted:
718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:
(a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
(b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
( c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
A lot of crimes are committed by first-time offenders, people who will never be arrested again. Is the solution really to forego the conditional sentence and to send them to crime school? Is it really to separate them from their communities? Is it really to prevent them from having a job? Is it really to interrupt their schooling, if that is the case? Do we not want to “promote a sense of responsibility...and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community”? It is not a good idea to send offenders to prison in order to rehabilitate them. That is like sending someone who is not sick to a place filled with germs or contagious diseases.
These examples are nothing I have ever heard of before. When judges give a conditional sentence, they take into account the fact that the individual will be at home. They do not give that option to people they feel should go to prison to be separated from society. Judges have good reasons for imposing a conditional sentence. For example, they may want to allow an individual to continue to work. Interrupting work or causing first-time offenders to lose their jobs will encourage them even more to get involved with the wrong people and will increase their chances of re-offending. That is one of the things that judges look at.
Very often, the offender needs to continue to work in order to support his family. Separating the offender from his family would punish the entire family, but the judge could impose conditions that would be difficult enough for the offender. In some cases, we want to give offenders a chance to make reparation for the crime they committed. We want to take them out of crime school.
These sentences allow for some form of punishment to be imposed. Those who believe that it is not punishment could perhaps try spending a week in their homes without going out. I have read articles about people who tried it and, in general, they did not really like it.
In general, when judges allow these people to leave their homes, it is so they can keep a job or continue their studies, which will ultimately ensure that they are rehabilitated and provide them with the opportunity to make restitution. It is a tool that enables judges to ensure the rehabilitation of first-time offenders in thousands of cases.
I heard the beginning of the speech by the member from Edmonton—St. Albert, which was remarkable. In my opinion, he gave an excellent explanation of the rationale for establishing conditional sentences. When he went on to say that these sentences should be abolished, he initially spoke of the public's loss of confidence in the justice system.
It seems to me that when we find out that the majority of people unfortunately have a poor opinion of the justice system, and that this opinion is not warranted, it is up to the government to provide the information to change people's minds. I understand how people feel about the justice system although it is never as radical as what we hear in this place. I have the impression that, in this regard, there is truly a huge cultural difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada. We often see articles about rehabilitation and excessive incarceration.
The media, by their very nature, tend to focus on exceptional cases. Articles in that regard appear from time to time in magazines like L'Actualité in French, or Maclean's in English, for example. Generally speaking, the news we get presents the exceptional cases. Success in rehabilitation is not exceptional. On the contrary, it is the norm, but it is made up of many, tiresome, little cases or those involving people who do not want to see their names in the paper in connection with examples of rehabilitation. Instead, the media are full of exceptional sentences. Most of the time, when we see sentences that appear impossibly or unbelievably lenient, if we dig a little deeper, we will often see any number of reasons to justify the judge's sentence, but the people who talk about lenient sentences do not give us those reasons.
So, newspapers do not generally keep us very well informed about what is happening. I am not surprised that the government has not brought forward any objective studies to show that conditional sentences can lead to problems and that they have not resulted in the advantages we hoped to see when they were created, as so eloquently described by the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert.
Judging the seriousness of crimes by the maximum sentence that is attached to them is rather dangerous, because it can apply to cases that are extremely different, for instance, breaking and entering into a private home. Of course, in principle, our homes are our castles, and should be impenetrable. It is extremely traumatic to come home and realize that thieves have broken in.
Sometimes it is even worse. They have turned everything upside down or raided our liquor cabinet or defaced the walls. It is a very traumatic experience. But in most cases, things do not go nearly as far. I have noticed that if there is someone at home, thieves will not enter. Petty thieves, those who are pushed by their peers, do not want to enter a house if someone is there. Some will throw a party at an unoccupied cottage. I am not condoning that. On the contrary, I would not want to find out that my son has been involved in that type of behaviour. Nonetheless, I have noticed that quite often petty thieves are influenced by a group.
They are liable to life imprisonment. It seems to me that these are cases where, to make the offenders realize what they have done, a judge can tell them that the maximum sentence for such an offence is life imprisonment, but given that this is their first offence, that they were influenced by others, he will give them a two-year prison sentence. What is more, since it is their first conviction, they could serve their sentence at home, but under certain conditions. They will have to continue their studies, be home every night of the week, with permission to go out just once, and so on. The judge establishes a certain number of conditions. In the vast majority of cases, these people will never appear before the court again.
However, if they are sent to prison they will end up in an environment that is completely different than their family life. That is no place to learn how to live an honest life. I know very few people who left prison a better person than when they entered. Prisons are full of thugs and people learn that behaviour there.
I just want to point out one thing here. Quebeckers were recently floored by charges brought against a big star, one of the biggest stars in hockey history, as big a star as Maurice Richard. Guy Lafleur was found guilty of perjury. He was accused of having made two contradictory statements while under oath. There is no telling which of the two was true, but one of them had to be false. That constitutes perjury. Perjury is punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Guy Lafleur would not be eligible for a conditional sentence. That is not what he got. He got a big fine and a suspended sentence. Frankly, can the member for Beauséjour tell me one more time why it would have been so scandalous for him to get a conditional sentence? The sentence he ended up with was just one level lower, a suspended sentence.
I mentioned comfortable living rooms. I can confirm that they might not be desirable. I was surprised to hear the member for Edmonton—St. Albert suggest that, given his experience with criminal law. Most of the people receiving these sentences do not have comfortable living rooms with big-screen TVs. In fact, I am almost certain that there are more TVs in prison, and better ones than these people have at home, and probably more CDs to choose from. It is not a nice place to be. In many cases, these people get into trouble in public places because they live on the streets, and they live on the streets because home is not a very comfortable place to be.
I think it is a bad idea to take this essential tool away from judges because it can help rehabilitate those who have just committed their first crime. That is why, unlike the member for Beauséjour, we agree with the arguments expressed by the member for Edmonton—St. Albert at the beginning of his speech and we will vote against this bill. This is yet another bill introduced for ideological and perhaps even electoral reasons. It has nothing to do with science.
