This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.
Vic Toews Conservative
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment amends section 742.1 of the Criminal Code to provide that a person convicted of a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752 of that Act, a terrorism offence or a criminal organization offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more is not eligible for a conditional sentence.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-9s:
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak to the bill because the issue of protecting our citizens is a fundamental priority of all members of Parliament, regardless of our political stripes. The question is whether or not the legislation that we bring forth will achieve that end. Questions must be asked.
The other question is in terms of trying to come forward with a one size fits all solution and whether that is good social policy in the end. I would say that there definitely has been a trend. We have seen it in our neighbours to the south, where politicians never seem to be defeated if they demonize criminals. I am not ever going to defend criminal activity, but there is this sense of continual demonization and this sense that they are going to get tougher and tougher on them until they have large segments of the U.S. population in jail for incredible lengths of time.
I would like to speak about my own background. When I was much younger, and in another life perhaps, my wife and I dealt with men coming out of prison. They lived in our home. We visited many of the provincial institutions in southern Ontario and had to interview men who were looking for the opportunity to start a new life.
One of those men, and I will mention his name here, Pierre Fontaine, is dead now. He lived with our family for 17 years. He needed someone who was willing to take a chance. His record extended back into the 1950s. It is very difficult in the climate of today to say whether he would even be allowed out, because he was considered a repeat offender.
Mr. Fontaine moved in with our family. He was a grandparent to my children. He was part of every family celebration we had for 17 years. In fact, he died at our home, and our family, our neighbours and our community came together and held a wonderful funeral. It was actually one of the most beautiful funerals I ever attended. In our community he was considered such a true gentleman. People from across the community came out for that funeral and to take part in it.
What I want to say about this is that my experience with criminals, and mostly we dealt with men, is that at the end of the day they were not bad men, but they made, my God, such incredibly stupid choices. If stupidity is a crime, and I guess it is, then these men were all incarcerated for doing very stupid things, mostly to themselves. They ended up with a prison record.
The problem we found, especially in dealing with young men who were facing prison, is that there was a tipping point with them. They had done something stupid in their youth and they were facing going to prison. The problem with them was that if we did not have alternatives, if we did not have choices to offer the judge to give them another opportunity, we were basically putting them into a factory, a foundry, in effect, for hard crime.
We saw those young men come out of juvenile detention and go to the Don Jail. When they came out of that jail they were a much different breed of person to deal with. The recidivism among those young men was appalling. The levels of violence increased dramatically the more people were put back into situations.
I think the whole notion of conditional sentencing was speaking to the need to find alternative ways to get some people out of the criminal system. The question is, has conditional sentencing worked across the board? Perhaps it has not, because one of the original agreements or understandings among lawyers and judges was that it would always be used for non-violent crime. Certainly if we are dealing with threats to persons, threats with guns and any kind of violence, the issue of conditional sentencing should be looked at again by legislators. It is a fair discussion to have take place. Legislation looking at whether or not the system is working is certainly within the purview of Parliament.
Once again, the problem I have with this bill, and I have said this many times, is that legislation is a very blunt instrument. The blunt instrument that we are bringing forward with this legislation will hammer many people. For example, cattle theft has been added to this list. Some of the issues we are dealing with, such as minor property crimes, are being added to take away the power of conditional sentencing. Rather than looking at whether or not violent criminals are getting away with conditional sentencing, we are looking at extending dramatically who will be caught up in this and we are taking away the ability of the courts to look at issues and find alternatives.
The problem with the bill, and again, I think it has to be looked at in terms of good social policy, is that we will see two results. One is that there will be more plea bargaining and more willingness by judges to bring in suspended sentences. Once we have suspended sentences, then we can put on no conditions whatsoever. The other problem will be that many of these offenders will be turned over to the provincial systems.
If we look at the number of conditional sentences today and multiply that by what it costs to maintain a provincial incarceration, we are looking at an additional cost of at least $250 million. We are looking at costs that are being borne by the provinces. I am wondering why it is that we are looking at something here in Parliament that will affect the provinces and will affect the courts, putting more people into provincial institutions who do not need to be there.
If the bill is looking at the issue of violent offences, violence against families and the misuse of conditional sentencing, then certainly it is within the obligations of Parliament to look at that issue. However, are we looking to broaden it dramatically to include, for example, mail theft or break and enter? Let us go back to my own experience in my younger days and look at stupid crimes.
Let us look at break and enter. I know many people who have been involved in break and enter and the last thing we needed to do at the end of the day was to send them away for 10 years. What we needed to do was put them away for a period of time but also give them the opportunity to make amends to the community. We need to make sure these people have counselling and that we get these people back to being productive members of society.
The other big issue is the issue of aboriginal youth who are incarcerated. Canada often looks at its own record and we pat ourselves on the back for our wonderful treatment, but let us look at the failure of the U.S. incarceration system and the issue of race. We see that by far in the United States it is blacks who are continually put before the courts with no conditions. No options are put forth. They are put away. In our own system, we see more and more aboriginal people being put behind bars, and again, for crimes that need to be addressed at a social level. We are not doing any of those aboriginal communities a favour by taking someone out of the community and throwing them away without having any options for the courts or the community to alleviate the problems. So many of these problems are based on social failings within the communities themselves.
We have looked to the aboriginal communities for their own way of doing restorative justice. I think it is a model. Obviously it cannot be used widely across the board, but we have already started to look at the aboriginal restorative justice model for youth offenders in the province of Ontario. We really need to see that it is a system that is grounded in some very strong principles. The principle it is fundamentally grounded in is that at the end of the day the only way we can solve some crimes is to rebuild and to heal a community. That is where the restorative justice system has proven itself.
In terms of where the NDP stands on these issues, it is that on the issues of serious crime and violence we certainly need to take a very strong line, but we do not need to simply throw the net wide open to grab a lot of people who are not nearly in the same league as violent criminals and throw them into a system that is fundamentally run by violence. It does not matter how well an institution is run, all jail systems are run on a principle of predatory violence. As for the effect this has on persons who are incarcerated, when they come out they are a very different class of person from what they were when they went in. I can testify to that from my own personal experience of dealing with men who come out of prison.
The other issue we need to look at is what I referred to earlier. It costs about $51,500 per inmate for provincial incarceration per year. It is $81,000 per federal inmate. My God, do we need to spend all that money on all these people all the time when we have not put the money into proper prevention and into protecting communities?
I point, for example, to the gun registry, where we spent a billion dollars tracking down people in northern Ontario, some of whom are 80 year old senior citizens, to fill out their possession only licences. That money could have been spent on police services, on border patrols and on working in communities to stop the gang violence. In my case, an 82 year old man came before me the other day whose possession only licence had expired.We do not have possession only licences any more and he has to take a safety course because he is somehow a threat to society.
What we do in Parliament has profound implications for all sectors of society. What I would suggest is that we have to be prudent. We have to be careful. We have to--
Criminal Code
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Moncton--Riverview--Dieppe.
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments tell me that he has first-hand knowledge of the effects of how the Criminal Code is an organic concept and has to grow with the times and the conditions of our community.
It also appears to me that he is right on the money when he says that legislation is a blunt instrument. In this case, this blunt instrument, written on the back of a napkin, with the government attempting to railroad it through the commons, has many gaps, as he so rightly pointed out.
I have a question for the member. Does he agree with me that at committee, or somewhere else, this bill can be fixed by looking at the types of offences and removing those for which conditional sentences, with proper supervision, will work?
As a secondary part of my point, does he think, in his first-hand experience and the experience of his years as an MP, that one of the problems with conditional sentences, which has led to the impression of many on the other side that they do not work, is that the supervisory aspect inherent in conditional sentencing has fallen down because of a lack of resources committed to those supervisors? Frankly, they are swamped.
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is one of the main issues we end up having to deal with when someone is returned to society. It does not matter whether it was for stealing shoelaces or stealing cars, or even for violent crimes, at one point they have to be returned to society. What we need at that point are the resources to get them back into society in a safe and functioning way.
The halfway houses and the John Howard Society have played really important roles, but we have seen a shortage of resources. We have seen a shortage of places that will give people a safe environment. I know from my own experience that people could not get out of jail without an address, but they had no place to go. What these people needed when they got out was a time out. If they did not have a time out where they could be in a normal, functioning environment, they immediately would end up back on the street. Once they are on the street, they will inevitably return to crime. The lack of support in terms of dealing with people who are in transition back into the community has been a real issue.
As for the other point the hon. member raised about committee, definitely, a bill like this is very important. We need to go through it very carefully, not to stall but to make sure that we are doing the due diligence so that at the end of the day we are coming forward with legislation that works, that responds to people's needs, and that takes what we are trying to do at a parliamentary level and provides lawmakers and communities with the resources so they can actually deal with the issue of crime.
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a final and quite direct question for the member of the NDP. When the Liberals brought in the conditional sentencing bill some years ago, there was a provision in there, despite calls from the opposition for there not to be, that people who committed violent crimes would have an opportunity to receive conditional sentences. Despite the assurance that it would not happen, we have seen a multitude of instances where violent crime offenders, when convicted, received conditional sentences.
I want to ask the member this directly. Does he believe that people who commit violent crimes as we know them, such as sexual assault and armed robbery, violent crimes of that sort, should be eligible to receive conditional sentencing? If not, will he support this bill?
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member. The problem is that we are not dealing with that bill today. We are not dealing with a bill dealing with the need to ensure that people who are committing violent crimes are not getting conditional sentencing. We are dealing with a much larger omnibus bill that is dragging in a whole lot of other people.
If the member's government was willing to carve that out, to look at this legislation and come back to Parliament with that legislation very clearly defined, I am sure he would find strong support across the House of Commons. The other option would be--
Criminal Code
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
Mr. Speaker, the point that I would like to bring to the debate is that while this is a remarkably short bill, the implications of it are quite remarkable.
What I find particularly interesting is we are talking about a bill that says it is not possible to have a conditional sentence if the penalty is 10 years or more, but then when we actually go to the list of possible crimes and misdemeanours which would be worth 10 years or more, it is quite astonishing.
For example, one can be sentenced to 14 years for intimidating Parliament. Whether that might demand a conditional sentence under some conditions, I cannot say. Forging a passport or using a forged passport has a penalty of 14 years. With respect to communicating false information, I would think there has to be some more detail about this one because the penalty could be life imprisonment. I would think there might be some conditions where a conditional sentence would be more appropriate. Contradictory evidence with an intent to mislead is worth 14 years. Perjury is worth 14 years. Fabricating evidence is worth 14 years.
Do we think under all of those conditions there might not be a situation in which a conditional sentence would be more appropriate?
Theft over $5,000 is worth 10 years. A public servant who refuses to deliver property could get 14 years. Cattle theft is included. One has the sense of the majesty and history of the Criminal Code with this roll call of fascinating things. Destroying documents of title is worth 10 years, but could someone not be given a conditional sentence for that? What about the unauthorized use of a computer? I would bet there has been a little bit of that around here. How long is that? Ten years.
Disguise with intent is another one. That happens in the political world all the time. It is worth 10 years.
John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON
That is right. Disguised as decent kind of Liberal people. Disguised with intent. Looks like Hallowe'en is in some difficulty.
If we were simply to go with the bill as it is, a lot of us would ask, what about specific cases in this long list that includes things that have changed and evolved over time? Would it not be more appropriate for us to send the bill to committee, which this side is willing to do, to examine in detail the effects that this surprisingly deceptively short bill has, to make sure that we are not inadvertently doing something quite foolish? It seems to me that is the task of Parliament and that is indeed the task of parliamentary committees.
The whole concept of conditional sentencing itself is rather sophisticated. It has been developed as part of the tool kit of restorative justice. It is basically a good idea to have it. We want to make sure in simply passing the bill that we do not undo the good things that come from conditional sentencing. That would be a very important reason for us not to support the bill in its present form because of these questions, and for us to have a proper sorting out at second reading of all of the implications so that we will not be in a worse situation than we are. We are not denying that in some cases this might make sense, but let us go through all the cases where it might apply.
There is another question that arises out of our examination of Bill C-2. It is the whole question of whether this has been certified as constitutional. We have gone through a certain amount of ambiguity, where certain legal officers in the context of Bill C-2 have said they do not think that bill satisfies the constitutionality test. We heard from the Attorney General in the case of Bill C-2 that it does, but when there is that kind of ambiguity it seems to me that it raises flags about all the legislation that comes before us.
What we ought to do is make absolutely certain that this bill has had that kind of certification from the Attorney General so that we find ourselves in a position of clarity.
This is one of the reasons that we need to give greater examination to the detail, because the detail is not in the bill itself; it is in all that is implied, the whole philosophical background behind conditional sentencing. We know that if we do not get it right, we will undo all of the good work, the advances in thinking on this that have occurred.
I would ask the government to work with us in a cooperative--
Criminal Code
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
I have been signalling to the member about his time.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
The House resumed from June 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I am having to speak to a bill that has a lot of problems, but it has one small part, the remnants of the former Liberal Bill C-70, that we want to keep. To do that I am going to have to vote for a bill that has so many problems. However, we want to get it to committee, as I think the majority of speakers have said, so we can make the corrections.
Provisions in this particular bill regarding conditional sentences are covered under section 742.1 of the Criminal Code. In fact, they were paraphrased by the justice minister on May 29 in his speech. In both place it says that the court is satisfied that serving the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community.
Therefore, if individuals cannot get a conditional sentence when they would be endangering the community, then why do we need to reduce conditional sentences at all? It does not make any sense at all. In fact, they could get even more and better treatment and directions than they could in jail, because as part of conditional sentencing, they might have to pay back the victim, be ordered to perform community service, or attend various treatment programs that may not be available in jail.
There were a few, and let me ensure members that there were very few, unfortunate situations, compared to the many successes of conditional sentences. The Liberals tabled Bill C-70 which would have dealt with those. Unfortunately, it did not pass because of the election, so I am glad that those parts are back in this bill, but that bill basically would have removed, except for presumption of cases, conditional sentences for serious personal injury offences, terrorism offences, which is so cogent today, criminal organization offences and denunciation.
This is particularly important to me in the north because, as the critic representing the whole north, I have had women from Yukon and Nunavut who do not want to see these types of sexual assault and personal injury offences treated in such a way that the victim is victimized again or in any danger. That is why we had promoted this bill and that is why I am going to have to vote for a bill that has a lot of problems, to get the protection in those particular cases for women. Hopefully, we can take the many other problems out of the bill, or it just will not be acceptable to vote for it at further readings.
There is a problem because it will take 92 offences, many of which are not in the last bit violent, away from the very successful solution of being treated by conditional sentences. In fact, as the justice department has said, it would lead to the incarceration, using present statistics, of about 5,400 of the 15,000 people who previously had conditional sentences. To give an example, as the Minister of Justice said, there would have been 466 people sent to jail in B.C., over 1,000 in Quebec and over 603 in Saskatchewan, once again many for non-violent crimes. This is a huge change to the justice system that has had advances in sentencing and reducing crime in this country. In Saskatchewan, that would put 61% of the people in jail who otherwise would have had more logical treatment.
There is a famous saying that for every complex problem there is a simple solution, and it is wrong. That is basically a summary of this bill. By taking this catch-all phrase and catching the few instances that were a problem, we are creating many more problems and dangers for society. We are actually endangering Canadian citizens in a number of ways which I will outline at the end of my speech.
I would like to give some examples of offences that are not violent and where people would not be in danger if a person were to be given better treatment. There is perjury; refusing to deliver property; providing contradictory evidence with the intent to mislead; stopping mail with intent; fabricating evidence; obtaining things based on forged documents; possessing counterfeit money; possessing a noxious substance with intent to cause bodily harm; unauthorized possession of a firearm; certain types of intercourse and incest; abduction; contravening a custody order, and everyone has heard of a parent who has taken his or her child at an inappropriate time in a custody battle; being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and who has not gone into someone's house when they were not home, people they thought were friends, and not been there unlawfully; disguised with intent; theft of mail; forgery; and uttering forged documents.
In some situations it could be criminal to actually send someone to jail and it could make a seasoned criminal out of them when the success of conditional sentencing and other treatments would make more sense.
It is obviously prejudicial to aboriginal people because a higher percentage of the aboriginal population is incarcerated than the regular population. It is particularly cogent in Nunavut where the jails are so far from the home.
The Conservatives think family values are important and to be separated for a minor offence so far from one's family can create far more problems for the person and make that person ultimately far more dangerous to society than had the person had the option of a conditional sentence for these non-violent types of situations.
The bill reflects a lack of understanding of the whole concept of sentencing in Canada, the sentencing that has been so modernized and is now reducing crime rates. The judges, who are experts and trained in this field, listen to all the evidence, understand the person's situation, knows whether theses are repeat offences and the person's age and can then determine from a whole array of solutions the best treatment for the person and therefore make that person the safest in society and not endanger citizens. By totally eliminating the options for those 92 offences is a backward step in the criminal justice system.
It costs $95,000 to keep a young offender in jail for a year for a non-violent crime. For that money we could have taken that young person swimming twice a week for 30 weeks, skating once a week for 50 weeks, to play in a basketball league for 26 weeks, to play badminton for 30 weeks, golfing 20 times at a nine hole golf course, to participate in fencing or karate, to take an art course for 30 weeks, to act in a theatre production, to teach them computer skills, to take a boating course, to acquire leadership skills, to take a first aid course, to participate in a drop-in and buy the young person all the equipment for these activities and still return $93,000 to the Government of Canada that would not have been spent on simple incarceration that makes it less likely the person will be a positive addition to society.
I want to give the 10 reasons as to why the bill is endangering Canadian citizens and why it will be more dangerous for them if it were to pass. First, many of the crimes can also proceed by summary conviction and the judges will do that rather than give an inappropriate jail term.
Second, a suspended sentence with probation is another option. Once again, offenders will not receive a conditional sentence. It will just be a suspended sentence and it will be more dangerous on the streets.
Third, the judges will not convict. In fact, the bill may be cruel punishment and not be constitutional on a simple crime.
Fourth, there would be more conditional discharges which would make it more dangerous for Canadians.
Fifth, they would serve time where both quality and quantity of the treatment may not be nearly as effective.
Those are the first five of the reasons that the bill would make Canada more dangerous. I will do the other five if someone asks me the question.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Yukon on a couple of examples that happened in my riding where my constituents believe the justice system fell apart.
A few years ago an individual in my riding, who was on his ninth impaired driving charge, drove down the highway and killed an 18 year old girl. At that time he received the maximum of eight years. He served two years and two months and then was off on parole, first a half-way house and then parole. This sentence thoroughly upset the community.
Now I understand that every case needs be taken on its individual merits, that everything cannot be blanket covered and that there are circumstances before each court room. However, my belief is that the justice system failed the family. It fails society when a person can have nine impaired charges and on the ninth one kill a young girl and take away her entire future. It casts a shadow or pall against the family for the rest of their lives.
How does the member believe we should be correcting the justice system to prevent this type of activity in the future?