Bill C-9 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment)

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.

Criminal Code

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time has arrived for statements by members. The member has seven minutes and 58 seconds, I believe, remaining in her time.

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 third time and passed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan had eight minutes left when we last debated this issue.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before we went into question period, I was talking about the fact that Bill C-9, as originally presented by the government, would have had a severe impact on first nations, Métis and the Inuit. They already are severely overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Removing the option of conditional sentences for so many offences would have only increased the numbers of aboriginal people in prison.

I want to quote from the Teslin Tlingit Council letter, dated October 20, asking the government to reconsider its position around conditional sentences. It states:

Within the Yukon, conditional sentences have proven to be an effective instrument utilized by the Territorial Courts working with First Nation community processes, such as the Teslin Tlingit Peacemaker Sentencing Panel. Conditional sentences have contributed toward the promotion and exercise of community accountability and support of offenders to achieve the successful completion of their conditions, while also acknowledging and responding to the interests of those who have been victimized by crime. The result is that families are kept together with a focus on balancing retribution and rehabilitation of the individual, which provides for the benefit of the overall community.

It is incumbent upon this House to consult appropriately with aboriginal people to ensure that the justice system is not going to take its toll on their families and communities.

This bill, as amended, was the result of diligent work by all members of the opposition party on that committee. I want to especially single out the member for London West who worked with the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and a member from the Bloc to have the bill amended to reflect the wishes of Canadians.

Canadians had been saying that they recognized the serious concerns. Canadians had some serious concerns where conditional sentences were used for serious violent crimes. Canadians thought that in those cases they were inappropriate. As a result, the amended bill reflects the fact that serious violent crime is not a situation where conditional sentences should be used.

This bill now reflects the intention to provide notices to judges to be much more careful when considering offences involving serious violent crime.

I want to use an example of serious sexual assaults. The committee heard from aboriginal women of cases where there were very serious assaults, yet the severity of the assault was not given sufficient consideration when conditional sentencing was considered.

There were a very small number of cases involved in this kind of serious violent crime, but it is very important that judges hear from parliamentarians that using conditional sentences in those kinds of circumstances just was not appropriate. This amended bill provides that direction to the courts not to repeat those kinds of abuses of conditional sentencing.

Much has been made about the use of conditional sentences, and there has been a saying to never let the facts get in the way of rhetoric and a lot of overblown statements. However, the opposition parties did consider the facts. They looked at the information that had been provided by a number of witnesses that talked about the benefits of conditional sentencing. In fact, Canada has been a leader in the world in making conditional sentences work.

Conditional sentences are a step in between probation and incarceration. Part of the benefit of conditional sentences is that it allows the judge the latitude to order treatment and other rehabilitative measures. Statistics show that when offenders have access to treatment and other rehabilitative measures, their chances of returning to prison go down.

This is an important factor because Canadians want prevention. They do not want people to end up in prison to begin with. They to ensure that they have access to housing and to education, and to other social supports that prevent them from getting involved in a life of crime to begin with. Canadians do not want people to return to jail. We know that if we provide some measures, in cases where it is not a serious violent crime, to keep people out of prison, their chances go down of re-offending.

These numbers come from Statistics Canada, from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. It says that those who served a conditional sentence were less likely to return to corrections than those who served a prison sentence. These are statistics from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan in 2003 and 2004.

It is often said in this House that the victims often get left out of this equation. There was a study conducted by Julian Roberts and Kent Roach which concentrated upon the victims of crime and their attitudes toward conditional sentencing. Let me refer to what came out of that study, which again was concentrated on the victims of crime.

It was found that most rehabilitation programs can be more effectively implemented when the offender is in the community rather than in custody; that prison is no more effective a deterrent than the more severe intermediate punishments such as enhanced probation; and that the widespread interest in restorative justice has sparked interest in community based sanctions. Restorative justice initiatives seek to promote the interests of the victim at all stages of the criminal justice system, but particularly at the sentencing stage.

There has been some work done. I want to put this in context. We talk about the Conservatives being Republican-like, so I need to bring in statistics from the U.S. According to an article in Vanity Fair:

If the blue states are sinkholes of moral decay, as right-wing pundits insist, how come red states lead the nation in violent crime, divorce, illegitimacy, and incarceration, among other evils?

This Vanity Fair article talks about a book called Red State, Blue State. It says that red states tend to be the most violent places to live. These are Republican states. Red states dominate the rankings of violent crimes despite their emphasis on judgment and incarceration. It seems that the odds of being shot are much higher in a red state and they are the top 15 states in the rate of death by firearms. In the U.S., which has already had this history of being so-called tough on crime, we have seen that crime goes up.

I would argue that we need to look at the appropriate use of conditional sentences and we also need to look at being tough on the causes of crime and being smart on crime. In those cases, what we really need to do is look at adequate enforcement, prevention and a social safety net that supports keeping people out of poverty and supports the appropriate drug and alcohol rehabilitation as being very necessary.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and I would like to comment on the tough on crime statement that crime goes up. It does not seem to make sense to me. I would seriously question the statistic. In some cases, at least for petty crimes, the rate goes down because when nothing is done about it, people stop reporting it.

I had an individual in my riding, before my riding boundaries changed in 2004, whose store kept getting robbed. Guys, usually young people, would break in at night. They would break down the door, take some stuff and leave. They would leave the door open so that especially in winter it was really not a good thing. He would report it and by the time the police arrived, the damage was done and when they did find the offenders, they got a little slap on the wrist and kept doing it again.

From the victim's point of view the crime rate went down because when he reported these robberies, his insurance company kept increasing his premiums due to the fact that he was a higher risk. He received the punishment and the other guys went free. He said it only made sense to him that he would not report it any more and so he did not.

The incredible part of the story is that one night he was suspicious that they had not hit for a while and maybe that was going to be the night, so he decided to spend the night in his store. Sure enough, they broke in the door. He caught them and held them for the police. The kids got home before he did because he was left to clean up the broken door before he could go home. The police just took the kids home and that was it.

I would like the member to respond to the fact that we need to have accurate statistics based on fact, not just on what is reported.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear the member say that he would actually like to see things based on fact, because that is what I am doing. I am quoting fact, not rhetoric.

This is from the Bureau of Justice statistics in the United States. It says that of the ten states with the highest number of total inmates per 100,000 residents in 2003, nine were red. Of the ten states with the most female inmates per 100,000 residents in 2003, all were red. According to these very same statistics, it was the red states that had the highest incidence of crime, so their being tough on crime by putting people in jail was not solving the issue.

I would argue that part of the problem, and the corrections people themselves will say this, is that we need more data in Canada. We need more studies, for example, on how conditional sentencing impacts on aboriginal people. We need to know what the rate of recidivism is. We need to know when people are given access to a rehabilitation and treatment program, whether or not it shortens the length of time people are in prison and increases the length of time that people are able to stay in the community and perhaps contribute to a more productive society.

I certainly would be pleased to provide the member with the statistics from the Bureau of Justice in the United States.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House who worked on the bill know that the appropriate delineation is the serious personal injuries and organized crime, which would bring in any offence in the Criminal Code if organized crime was involved.

I have heard the Minister of Justice talk as if some dangerous offender's hearing is going to happen to people. It seems there is some misleading going on about exactly the type of offences. I heard it a couple of times. The first couple of times I thought that maybe it was a mistake and I was not hearing quite properly.

Maybe certain members opposite who do not seem to understand the legislation properly and what the legislation puts forward should be going back to the justice officials and getting proper briefings. I just want to hear the hon. member's comments.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for London West for her work on the committee.

The intent of the bill, as amended, is that it will not be used for the most serious violent crimes. That is why the amendments were put forward in that fashion. It should be noted that the only time judges can even use this particular amended bill is if the sentence is to be two years less a day.

That was a very good comment on the member's part.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to enter the debate on Bill C-9. I can say that in thee inner city riding of Winnipeg Centre which I represent, crime and safety issues are overwhelmingly the number one top of mind issues of the people that I represent when I canvass their views or when they provide me with their opinions in an unsolicited way. Overwhelmingly what my constituents want to talk about are crime and safety issues.

I have tried to address those concerns to accurately reflect those interests. I have stood 22 times in this 39th Parliament to speak on crime and justice issues in my riding. This speech today is the 23rd along these lines that I have made.

I agree 100% with the people in the riding of Winnipeg Centre that Canadians have a right to safe streets. My constituents have a right to feel safe in their homes. Members of Parliament and elected representatives have a duty and an obligation to do everything they can to make the streets safe and to give people the reasonable comfort that they want.

I can recount how things have changed since I grew up in Winnipeg. It was not unusual when I was a kid that after dinner we simply went outside and played. We played hard. We ran and played with all of our friends and neighbours. All of us would pour out of our houses right after dinner and we would not come back home until dusk or until our mothers were hollering out the front door for us to come home.

Those days are over. No one does that anymore in the inner city of Winnipeg. They cannot; it is not safe. Parents cannot send their kids to the corner store to buy a quart of milk in some neighbourhoods in my riding.

The entire city is in mourning, in shock and in grief at the depravity that occurred only 10 days ago not blocks from my office in the inner city of Winnipeg. I will not go into the graphic details, but what occurred was one of the most horrific gang related murders of an innocent bystander that has ever taken place in Winnipeg. It reminded people that things have gone too far. Citizens demand corrective action. They demand that MPs and elected people do what they can to make their streets safe.

In that vein I try to support as many of the bills on criminal justice, crime and safety issues that I possibly can. I voted yes on Bill C-9 on June 6, 2006 at second reading. My party was in support of Bill C-9 again just this week. In the interim, the bill was dramatically amended at committee. The Liberals moved dramatic motions which were supported by the Bloc and the NDP. Therefore, by the time we got to vote on Bill C-9 again, it was a radically changed bill, but it still has the effect of reducing conditional sentencing.

The hue and cry that was generated in many communities, my own included, is that conditional sentencing was being used too frequently for the wrong people and the wrong types of crime. People were demanding justice.

I am told that 500 to 600 people per year will no longer be eligible for conditional sentencing upon conviction under Bill C-9 as it currently stands, even as amended by the committee. The bill as originally introduced by the Minister of Justice would have caused about 2,600 people per year to be ineligible for conditional sentencing upon conviction. I agree that is a dramatic difference, but I also remind people that we have gone a step toward using conditional sentencing less.

I do not know what terrible forces compel children and youth in my riding to commit the atrocity that occurred 10 days ago on Sergeant Avenue. A 32-year-old woman went to the 7-Eleven to buy a quart of milk and met her death by a swarm of children 12, 14 and 15 years old; she was murdered brutally on a street in my riding. I do not blame the people of Winnipeg to be demanding an appropriate response.

What has created these social conditions is a complex mix of hopelessness, desperation, chronic long term poverty, violence, substance abuse and drugs. I do not know what the whole recipe is to create these appalling social conditions, but it has gone from bad to worse in recent years. Today, 47% of all the families in my riding live below the poverty line and 52% of all the children in my riding live below the poverty line. Those are alarming statistics, the worst in Canada. They got worse during the 13 years of Liberal reign. They went from bad to worse as every social program, which tried to hold that troubled neighbourhood together, was cut, hacked and slashed.

The cutbacks to the EI fund alone took $20.8 million a year out of my riding, already the poorest riding in Canada. That $20.8 million was sucked right out of there. It is like having the payrolls of two major auto plants ripped out of the riding for no compelling reason. It drove people from the edge of despair into absolute desperation.

I am not saying that poverty is the root cause of crime. I am saying that people in those appalling social conditions are a lot more likely to be exposed to, victims of, and part of criminal activity.

I suppose the god of the Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice, CPC) is a vengeful god, but revenge is only one element of sentencing. We have to address that. There are other motivations. Revenge and punishment, yes, but there has to be some recognition that rehabilitation has to be one of the goals. Yes, we are trying to protect society from certain people who should be locked away, but let us not lose sight of the bigger picture, so when we get tough on crime, we have to get smart on crime at the same time. I do not want that ever to become a cliché.

Deterrence and denunciation is important and we have to ensure that the sentence is commensurate with the gravity of the crime. I cannot imagine a sentence appropriate enough to be commensurate with the crime that happened not blocks away from my office when a 32 year old innocent woman went to a 7-Eleven store to buy a quart of milk. I will not go into the details because they are too horrific to share here today. Let it simply be said that Winnipeg is reeling in shock at the gravity of this offence.

As good as it feels to punish and as tempting as it is to be motivated by revenge and vengeance, I sympathize with those who are calling out for that reaction. We have to contain ourselves. This is the very time that leadership is required. We cannot shape social policy while we are in the midst of the backlash to one of the most horrific anecdotal crimes seen in our country, and certainly in my city of Winnipeg. In a sense, we have lost our innocence.

Winnipeg is in shock the same way the city of Victoria was when Reena Virk was so brutally murdered. This is the type of injury that this offence has done to my community. It is why the papers today are full of absolute demands for swift justice, for tougher sentences and for stricter penalties. The Minister of Justice unfortunately is capitalizing on this. He is playing politics with the misery associated with this terrible crime. He is out there in the newspapers saying that the NDP is soft on crime because we do not agree with every single thing he says.

In fact, we voted for eight or nine of his ten or twelve justice bills recently, trying to make the criminal justice system more appropriate. Just because we do not accept everything he says as chapter and verse of the gospel according to the Minister of Justice, does not mean we are soft on crime. It means we are trying to make Bill C-9 better. Committee stage is for that, and it felt the bill went too far.

I voted for Bill C-9. I will support it when it comes up again, as amended, but do not let anybody in the House try to say that we are soft on crime because we tried to make that bill better

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult not to stand in the House and say that the NDP is not soft on crime.

I am going to ask the member about the contradiction. He talks about being tough on crime. I have heard him say that a number of times in the House. Yet he voted against the tough measures proposed by the original bill introduced by the government.

The government wanted to ensure that people who broke into homes, burned down property and stole cars could not serve their sentence in the comfort of their living rooms. Why would the member have voted against such measures? We know, as citizens, that criminals behind bars cannot break into homes, steal cars or burn down property. The list of offences goes on.

It is unbelievable the things that the member and his party believe should be eligible for conditional sentences, things like assault with a weapon, sexual assault, kidnapping, trafficking in persons.

Why the contradiction? If he is tough on crime, why did he not stand up, support the original bill as introduced by the government and ensure that these types of sentences could not be served at home?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I voted, yes, for Bill C-9 on June 6, and I will vote yes for it again in its amended form.

Bills evolve as they go through the process. I believe Bill C-25, the proceeds of crime bill, is not tough on crime and we are trying to amend it to get tougher.

I do not know why the government is going so light on criminals in being able to keep their luxury homes, their tricked out Escalades and their fancy motor boats. We believe those assets should be seized and put the reverse onus on the criminal to prove they were purchased by legitimately earned monies and not the proceeds of crime.

I do not know why--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too listened with interest to the member's speech. He used the word revenge as it relates to this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is there needs to be a component in all of our justice system in terms of preventing crime and rehabilitation, but there also needs to be a strong deterrence. Deterrence is far different than revenge.

Would the member comment on the effectiveness of providing effective deterrents in our laws so people who are considering these kinds of actions will not do that?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The god of the Minister of Justice may be a vengeful god, but my faith informs me that revenge is not the only objective in sentencing. Deterrence and denunciation, the two ruling factors that judges address in sentencing, do not work when the social fabric has collapsed. People are not embarrassed by what they do, when they are dealing in crisis social conditions. Those two social pressures do not have the same effect that they have in a stable middle class wholesome community like Steinbach where the minister is from. Where I come from, they do not apply.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. I have a lot of respect for the member and his comment.

I guess I am having trouble, along with many people understanding, his new position with regard to Bill C-9.

On August 18, the member stated, “I think it's a social experiment that has failed catastrophically. If the idea was to save money by having less people in jail the trade-off hasn't been worth it”. Does the member not understand that by gutting Bill C-9, he is putting the very same car thieves, arsonists and break and enter people back on to the street to commit these crimes in the very community that he claims to protect?