The following is the full text of a Conservative Party of Canada News Release and Backgrounder dated September 23, 2008

Conservative Government Will Further Limit House Arrest

Will reintroduce restrictions on conditional sentencing that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc removed

September 23, 2008

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that a re-elected Conservative government will prevent serious crimes from being punished by “conditional sentencing,” commonly known as house arrest.

“Unlike the Opposition parties, we don’t believe that house arrest is a suitable punishment for serious crime,” said the Prime Minister.  “And Canadians don’t believe it either.”

Harper said that conditional sentencing – which was introduced by the Liberals in 1996 – is failing Canadians.

“Too many criminals on house arrest should never have been there in the first place,” said the Prime Minister.  “And too many have breached the terms of their sentence.”  Harper noted that, in Saskatchewan, 39 per cent of criminals sentenced to house arrest were sent back to jail for breaching their conditions.

During the last Parliament, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois voted together to ensure that numerous serious crimes would still be punishable by house arrest.  A re-elected Harper government will make the crimes ineligible for house arrest.  The list includes:

Serious property crimes, such as robbery, breaking and entering, and arson.

 - Weapons offences, such as possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose..

 - Home invasion.

 - Serious vehicular crimes, such as impaired driving causing bodily harm or death..

 - Drug trafficking.

 - Kidnapping and trafficking in persons.

“When all is said and done, soft on crime doesn’t work,” Harper said.  “We are determined to crack down on crime whether it is by youth or anybody else.”

Backgrounder

The Weber family live in Saskatoon.  Their home has been broken into on three separate occasions: October 2003, December 2003 and February 2004.  All three break-ins happened early evening, and cash and other goods were stolen.   Luckily, the family was not at home during any of the break-ins.  The perpetrators have not been caught.

Backgrounder

END HOUSE ARREST FOR SERIOUS CRIMES

The Issue

Conditional sentencing – including house arrest – was introduced by the Liberals in 1996, allowing convicted criminals to serve their sentence in the community rather than in a prison.

While there may be cases where conditional sentencing is acceptable, many serious and violent crimes are eligible for house arrest, including:

 - Arson

 - Kidnapping

  - Drunk driving causing bodily harm or death

 - Drug trafficking

 - Home invasion (not an offence per se; involves forcible confinement, robbery, extortion or break and enter in relation to a dwelling place)

By 2006, there were over 11,150 criminals serving conditional sentences, including 2,791 convicted of violent crimes, 3,619 convicted of property crimes and 2,062 for drug trafficking.[1][1]  There have been several cases where individuals convicted of serious and violent crimes received conditional sentences.[1][2]

Not only is house arrest not appropriate for serious crimes, far too many criminals who have been given conditional sentences breach the terms of their sentence. A 2006 Statistics Canada report found that 39 per cent of offenders serving a conditional sentence in Saskatchewan and 23 per cent in New Brunswick were admitted to custody because of a breach of condition.[1][3]

The Liberal plan for conditional sentencing has failed to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and that our communities are kept safe.

The Conservative Record

Since 2006, Stephen Harper and the Conservative Government have taken bold and decisive action to reduce crime and make our communities safer. Specifically, we:

 - Passed into law the comprehensive Tackling Violent Crime Act that aims to better protect youth from sexual predators, protect society from dangerous offenders, get serious with drug-impaired drivers and toughen sentencing and bail for those who commit serious gun crimes.

 - Passed legislation to increase penalties for those convicted of street racing.

 - Introduced a National Anti-Drug Strategy, including legislation that would provide mandatory jail time for serious drug crimes.

 - Appointed Canada’s first Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime to ensure the rights of victims are being respected.

Bill C-9

During the last Parliament, the Harper Government introduced Bill C-9, legislation that would have ensured that conditional sentences like house arrest would not be allowed for serious and violent crimes.

Specifically, the Conservative government introduced amendments to ban house arrest for numerous serious and violent crimes – but the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois wanted to preserve house arrest.  The Opposition worked together to water down the legislation.[1][4]

Crimes that the Conservatives tried to make ineligible for punishment by house arrest / Crimes that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois voted to keep as punishable by house arrest:[1][5]

The following offences were specifically enumerated in an amendment that the Opposition parties combined to defeat on November 1, 2006 (all section numbers refer to Criminal Code unless otherwise stated):[1][6]

1.  subsection 88(1) (possession of weapon for dangerous purpose)

2.  section 144 (prison breach)

3.  section 221 (causing bodily harm by criminal negligence)

4.  subsection 249(3) (dangerous operation causing bodily harm)

5.  subsection 252(1.2) (offence involving bodily harm)

6.  subsection 255(2) (impaired driving causing bodily harm)

7.  section 264 (criminal harassment)

8.  section 267 (assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm)

9.  section 279 (kidnapping, forcible confinement)

10.  section 279.02 (trafficking in persons — material benefit)

11.  section 281 (abduction of person under 14)

12.  section 283 (abduction)

13.  section 334 (a) (theft)

14.  paragraph 348(1)(e) (breaking and entering with intent, committing offence or breaking out)

15.  section 349 (being unlawfully in dwelling-house)

16.  section 435 (arson for fraudulent purpose)

17.  paragraphs 5(3)(a) and (b), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (trafficking)

18.  paragraphs 6(3)(a) and (b), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (importing and exporting)

19.  paragraphs 7(2)(a) and (c), Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (production)

The following offences are subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of fourteen years or more and do not meet the definition of “serious personal injury offence” in section 752 of the Criminal Code.  They were covered by paragraph (2)(b) of an amendment that the opposition parties combined to defeat on November 1, 2006:[1][7]

20.  section 75 (piracy)

21.  section 78 (taking offensive weapon or explosive substance on board aircraft)

22.  section 98 (break and enter to steal or with intent to steal a firearm)

23.  section 98.1 (robbery to steal or with intent to steal a firearm)

24.  section 119 (bribery of judicial officers)

25.  section 120 (bribery of officers)

26.  section 240 (accessory after the fact to murder)

27.  section 344 (b) (robbery)

28.  paragraph 346(1.1)(b) (extortion)

29.  paragraph 348(1)(d) (break and enter, dwelling place)

30.  section 434 (arson, damage to property)

The Plan

A re-elected Conservative Government will amend the Criminal Code to ensure that serious or violent crimes – including the 30 crimes listed above – are not eligible for conditional sentencing.

Many serious crimes not covered under the current provisions will be added to the list of crimes ineligible for conditional sentencing, including:

 - Serious property crimes, such as robbery, auto theft, breaking and entering, and arson.

 - Weapons offences, such as possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

 - Vehicular crimes, such as impaired driving causing bodily harm or death.

 - Home invasion (not an offence per se; involves forcible confinement, robbery, extortion or break and enter in relation to a dwelling place).

 - Kidnapping and trafficking in persons.

Criminals who commit these crimes should be punished appropriately and serve time in prison.  By restricting these crimes from conditional sentencing eligibility, Canadians will have a justice system that imposes sentences that fit the severity of the offence, that properly deters serious offences and that helps keep our streets safe.

The Choice

Liberals introduced conditional sentencing and allowed serious and violent crimes to be eligible.  Furthermore, when the Harper Government introduced legislation to make house arrest ineligible for numerous serious and violent crimes, all three Opposition parties voted against it.

The Harper Conservatives will make criminals serve prison time for serious crimes.

[1][1]  www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/legal22a.htm

[1][2]  For examples, see: R. v. F. (G.C.); R. v. Bhalru; R. v. Khosa; R. v. Fice: http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/summaries/c9-e.pdf

[1][3]  www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/061215/d061215b.htm

[1][4] House of Commons, 39th Parliament, 1st Session, Journals, No. 74 (Nov. 1, 2006), Division No. 53:  www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx? pub=Journals&doc=74&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1

[1][5]          “House arrest” refers to conditional sentencing.  This is a representative list, not an exhaustive list.

[1][6]        The Conservatives proposed that the crimes on this list would be ineligible for house arrest “if prosecuted by way of indictment and punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years.”  The Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois combined to defeat this proposal:   House of Commons, 39th Parliament, 1st Session, Journals, No. 74 (Nov. 1, 2006), Division No. 53:  www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?pub=Journals&doc=74&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1

[1][7]        The Conservatives tried to exclude from house arrest any “offence prosecuted by way of indictment for which the maximum term of imprisonment is fourteen years or more.”  The opposition parties voted to make ineligible for house arrest a person convicted of a serious personal injury offence as defined in section 752, a terrorism offence or a criminal organization offence.   Items 19 through 30 are crimes that would have been covered by the Conservatives’ wording but are not covered by the opposition parties’ wording.  Opposition wording at:  House of Commons, 39th Parliament, 1st Session, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Minutes of Proceedings, Meeting No. 23 (October 23, 2006).  Conservatives’ wording at:  House of Commons, 39th Parliament, 1st Session, Journals, No. 74 (Nov. 1, 2006), Division No. 53.