Mr. Speaker, I can see that the propagandists are out in full force. They would do credit to the communist party.
The propaganda is that crime is up in Toronto, the community which I come from, and it is overwhelmed by criminal activity. In fact, by any and every standard of measurement, crime is declining in every category. That is the truth.
This is politics pure and simple. When truth and propaganda collide, truth is a casualty. Even when the so-called law and order crowd, and my friends opposite would identify with that, is confronted directly with statistics that show that in every category crime is down, that crowd lapses into the rope a dope nonsense that statistics lie, et cetera. It is really quite pathetic because the propagandists will not deal with the truth.
We have here Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment). The bar is set quite high here, unlike the propaganda. The propaganda says that Canada is having a crime wave and more criminals need to be doing hard time. If that is true, why does the bill only deal with offences prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more? If we are being inundated by a crime wave, surely we should be lowering that bar, not raising it.
This hardly speaks to a so-called crime wave. One, there has to be a conviction, something that the law and order crowd frequently forgets. Two, if convicted, there has to be an exposure to a sentence in excess of 10 years. Three, the crown has to elect to proceed by way of indictment.
This is a very high bar of offences. Because it is so high, there are therefore very few charges to which the bill could possibly apply. It is the old bait and switch technique. It would be seen to be basic if the government would at least put on the table the number of offences to which this particular amendment to the Criminal Code might apply.
The propaganda repeats ad nauseam that there is a crime wave, that it is out of control and something must be done. Members of the public become convinced because they are repeatedly told that there is a crime wave, that it is out of control and that something must be done. What is that something; what will rein in this catastrophic crime wave? Is it Bill C-9? Canada would be so much safer after the passage of Bill C-9.
Does anyone know the pool of persons who are to be prosecuted by way of indictment and are liable to imprisonment for a period of 10 years or more and would have received a conditional sentence? Does any representative of the government know what is the pool of individuals who would be exposed to Bill C-9? Does anyone have a number for this, or is it just more smoke and mirrors from the propaganda crowd?
The bill invites us to believe two things: one, that there is a crime wave going on in Canada; and two, that all of the judges have taken leave of their senses.
For the purposes of putting some facts into the debate, I will read section 718 of the Criminal Code. For the hon. members opposite who have probably never read section 718, these are the principles by which a judge imposes a sentence. It starts:
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;
I am reading slowly for members opposite. It goes on:
(c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
(d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
(e) to provide reparation for harm done to victims or to the community; and
(f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgement of harm done to victims or to the community.
That is followed by subsection 718.1, which states that:
A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
That is followed by subsection 718.2 which states that a court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration certain facts that may increase or reduce any sentence imposed for any relevant, aggravating or mitigating circumstances and sets out what the aggravating circumstances might be such as:
(b) a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders committed in similar circumstances;
(c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
(d) an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances; and
Finally, it states:
(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
To be able to support the bill, we really have to believe that the judges have taken leave of their sentences.
I know members opposite may have been bored with the reading of that but, nevertheless, it is always good to set some context for the review of the bill. Regardless of one's views on the bill, one would have to say that section 718 is quite a comprehensive set of sentencing guidelines.
The government wants us to believe that Canada's judges are not smart enough to have read section 718. Alternatively, if they have read section 718, they are not smart enough to apply it. I do not know what members think about Canada's judges, but not smart enough is not one of the things that comes readily to mind. Regardless of whether one is left wing, or right wing or no wing at all, not smart enough is simply not applicable.
At one point in their lives, these judges have graduated from university, sometimes with one degree, sometimes with two. They have graduated from a law school. They have gone to a bar admission court. They have put in at least 10 years' in the practice of law. Not smart? I do not think so. Therefore, the bill invites us to believe that a judge did not apply his or her mind to the section 718 principles and did not consider whether the sentence should be served inside or outside of a jail.
These judges, having listened to all the evidence, having listened to and read the pre-sentence report, having heard submissions from the Crown and defence, are, according the propagandists opposite, in a poorer position than others to apply a sentence.
If somehow members think we should sentence by what we read in tomorrow's newspapers, they are welcome to that belief. For me, I will be prepared to accept that Canada's judges have read section 718, have applied their minds to section 718 and have given serious consideration as to whether a sentence should be served inside a jail or outside.
I am satisfied that Canada's judges get it. All the bill accomplishes is a fettering of a discretion on a minimal number of cases to pander to a non-existent problem. The judges are smart, they do get it and there is no crime wave, in spite of the propaganda.
One might say “what's the harm”, that it is a small number of people, that judges can do what they want and that it really is no big deal. I would like to remind all members in this chamber that we have a justice system. It is a justice system, not a sentencing system. It requires the application of justice to the convicted person. It is not a cookie-cutter system. It requires thought, knowledge and sometimes real agony on the part of the judge.
We have heard the law of physics which says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. While law is not as precise as physics, the bill would set up some perverse equal and opposite reactions.
The first reaction is that probably more people will go to jail. For some, that is a wonderful consequence, at least until they get the bill. I heard one member say that it was $50,000 per year. I thought it was $100,000 per year. Regardless of whether it is $50,000 or $100,000 per year, an inmate does not take long to rack up quite a bill of millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
For those who like to “hang 'em high and hang 'em longer”, this may be quite satisfying. To those who have to think about allocation of scarce resources, jailing people who could probably do their time outside jail just as well as they could inside jail can lead to the blowing of a budget quite rapidly.
The bill would scoop up people it never intended to scoop up. The welfare mom or dad convicted of fraud cannot be given a conditional sentence because it carries a penalty of over 10 years and because the Crown proceeded by way of indictment. We can all self-righteously say that he or she should be in jail, but who looks after the kids? Mom or dad are in jail at $100,000 a year plus the local children's aid society has to look after the kids. Not only is it expensive, but in all likelihood it will create our next generation of criminals.
Speaking of that, what increases recidivism? A spell in jail or a conditional sentence? Is there a greater likelihood of returning to crime after jail or after a conditional sentence where there is mandatory treatment, community service, house arrest, curfew and counselling? What is a better bet to prevent repeat offending? What about the unique offender populations? Does curfew and house arrest work better or does jail?
The bill is so crude and so poorly thought out. My colleague called it a legislative hammer where a legislative scalpel would do. When we bring in the propaganda of the ideology and we are committed, of course we go with a legislative hammer.
Instead of referring the bill to the justice committee at first reading so it could study it and Parliament could work collaboratively, the government wants to ram the bill through regardless of the facts. As Columbo might say, “Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts”. The government does not want to listen to the facts about the so-called crime wave. The government does not want to listen to the facts about sentencing. The government does not want to listen to the facts about recidivism. Certainly, the government does not want to listen to the facts about the unintended consequences of the bill.
It looks like a pattern and it probably is a pattern. The bill is typical of the government. It has no interest in the facts or in public policy. It is only interested in propaganda. As a propaganda bill, this is a very successful bill.
