Speech to the House of Commons on Bill C-42

October 20, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak during the second reading of Bill C-42, which proposes to limit the use of conditional sentencing for serious offences.

This is an issue that constituents in my riding of Leeds-Grenville take very seriously. It is an issue that I personally have addressed in the riding and one my constituents expect us to deal with - as we are with the introduction of this Bill.

Conditional sentences, also known as ‘‘house arrest’’, is a relatively new tool in Canadian law and can be imposed when several conditions are met:

1.The offence is not punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence;
2.The court imposes a sentence of less than two years;
3.The court is convinced that the service of the sentence in the community would not endanger the safety of the community;
4.The court must be satisfied that the conditional sentence would be consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing; and
5.The offence meets the following criteria:

i.It is not a serious personal injury offence (section 752),
ii.It is not a terrorism offence, 
iii.It is not a criminal organization offence,
prosecuted by indictment and for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more.

A sentencing judge may still decide not to impose a conditional sentence, even if all the conditions are met, if they feel that justice will not be served with such a sentence.



Mr. Speaker, Bill C-42 adds new, clear provisions to the conditional sentence sections of the Criminal Code, to ensure that conditional sentences are not available to individuals who commit serious violent and serious property crimes.

It removes some of the sentencing latitude that is now available for some of these offences.

It will end conditional sentences for indictable offences for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 14 years or life.

It would also apply to 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.

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:

• 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 purpose.

As has been explained, conditional sentences were never intended for very violent or serious crimes but rather for less serious offences. They were designed to be used in cases where offenders would be better served by doing “soft time” in surroundings where they could be rehabilitated.

Unfortunately, not all sentencing courts have interpreted the availability of conditional sentences in the same manner.

Consequently, many – including some provinces and territories – became increasingly concerned with the wide array of offences that resulted in conditional sentences of imprisonment.

And it isn’t just the courts that are concerned. Citizens across Canada are echoing those concerns.

Residents in my riding of Leeds-Grenville have approached me to discuss this subject.

If in their eyes the law is not working properly, we need to take a look and make changes where necessary.

The best way to deal with the ambiguity is through this Bill which provides clear definitions of what crimes are not punishable a conditional sentence.

We attempted to do that once before with Bill C-9 in 2006. That Bill was amended by the Opposition.

Bill C-9, in its original form, proposed a new criterion that would have eliminated the availability of a conditional sentence for offences punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment.

This would have caught serious crimes, including:

• designated violent and sexual offences;
• weapons offences;
• offences committed against children; and

serious property crimes such as fraud and theft over $5,000.

However, opposition members of the Justice Committee believed that the scope of Bill C-9 was too broad.

The Opposition voted to amend this legislation to only capture:

• terrorism offences;
• organized crime offences; and
• serious personal injury offences as defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code that are punishable by a maximum sentence of 10 years or more and prosecuted by indictment.

Because of the changes imposed by the Opposition on Bill C 9 it is has become clear that the current conditional sentencing regime still fails to categorically make conditional sentences ineligible for many very serious crimes.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in this House might be asking themselves if it is necessary to amend the conditional sentencing regime once again since the last amendments came into effect on December 1, 2007.

The answer is yes.

The concept of serious personal injury offences, defined in section 752 of the Criminal Code, was developed in the context of dangerous offenders.
However, the opposition parties borrowed this as a limit on the use of conditional sentences when they modified the government’s original proposal in Bill C-9.

This has resulted in more confusion in sentencing in the eyes of the general public where, for example, people found guilty of such crimes as assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, receive conditional sentences.

Serious property crimes in which fraud is committed against victims who have no recourse and receive no restitution for their often devastating loss, bring the offender a conditional sentence.

We appear to be allowing criminals who do serious harm to others, - physically, or even monetarily - to serve their time in comfort.

Sentences are supposed to reflect our society’s abhorrence of the crime. What are we telling our citizens and those who commit crimes when we send criminals who wilfully and knowingly do harm to others, away to serve a conditional sentence?

Mr. Speaker, conditional sentences are an appropriate sentencing tool in many cases but they do need to be restricted when it comes to serious property and serious violent offences.

Conditional sentences were created for less serious crimes.

It is for this reason that they are not available for offences punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence or for offences for which a sentence of two years or more is imposed.


To correct the unintended injustices imposed in 2007, I would urge my colleagues in the House to give this Bill their unanimous support in order to speed its passage.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.