SoVote

Jun/14/22 10:44:05 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear here. A conditional sentencing order is one tool that judges have at their discretion to ensure that public safety is protected. One of the prevailing issues is that the individual who gets a CSO does not pose a risk to society. We could come up with the worst criminal offenders, the worst types of crimes, and we could manufacture all of these scenarios, but those offenders would not get conditional sentencing orders. Let us be clear on that. This is about smart public policy, criminal law reform that is important that would address the issues of systemic racism.

105 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Mr. Gary Anandasangaree

Jun/14/22 12:12:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke for his incredible efforts at the justice committee in strengthening this bill. I want to get his perspectives on conditional sentencing orders. Much has been said by the opposition, particularly the Conservatives, on a whole host of accusations that CSOs would open up a floodgate for hardened criminals having “get out of jail free” cards. I am wondering if my friend opposite could talk about the impact the conditional sentencing orders would have on the criminal justice system and at what point the judges would be able to use those orders in order to ensure our communities are, in fact, safer.

118 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Mr. Randall Garrison

Jun/14/22 12:13:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, that is an important point we have been trying to get across in this third reading debate. The kinds of examples the Conservatives are raising and saying they will be eligible for conditional sentences will not be eligible for conditional sentences. Both the normal decisions of judges and the sentencing guidelines in use in Canadian courts mean that for serious crimes, conditional sentences will not be allowed. For anything where the sentence is over two years, that time will be served in custody and that time will be served in a federal institution. The importance of conditional sentences is that they allow the judges to look at the circumstances of the offender and whether the offence is associated with an addiction problem or whether it is associated with a mental health problem and to come up with a sentence that actually fits the needs of the community to be safer by making the sentence fit the needs of the person who came in conflict with the law. There is an additional benefit to public safety when judges are allowed to use conditional sentences for those less serious and less violent crimes.

193 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Ms. Lena Metlege Diab

Jun/14/22 12:51:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, that is why we are doing what we are doing. We need to restore greater availability of conditional sentences. We need to give judges more flexibility to ensure fairer sentences. Criminals will still get harsh sentences, but we need to take into consideration people's personal circumstances, and that is exactly what we are trying to do with this bill.

62 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jun/14/22 5:04:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that during his speech, the member said we are not going to be dealing with conditional sentence orders on some sort of sexual offence, as I heard it, but I cannot remember the term he used. I will remind him that about two weeks ago, I brought up a case in the House where a seven- or eight-year-old was victimized by the child's caregiver. That person received a conditional sentence order. My reason for rising on that very point was to say that it is incumbent on Parliament to change the framework that led to these types of decisions. This decision may have been a rarity, but the point is that Canadians come to us, as I am sure they do to the hon. member and certainly to me, and say an outcome was unacceptable. Why is it so wrong, if Canadians think an outcome is unacceptable, that it is being represented in the House through a mandatory minimum?

168 words