Bill C-25 (Historical)

Truth in Sentencing Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to specify the extent to which a court may take into account time spent in custody by an offender before sentencing.

Truth in Sentencing Act

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the attorney general of British Columbia, and the citizens of the province of British Columbia have asked for this, if this is going to provide some truth in sentencing, to delineate the provisions that are going to be afforded to those who are in custody before sentencing, to provide that level of security, knowledge and awareness on the part of the public and it is going to increase faith in the justice system, is this not a good thing?

I take his points very clearly on the provincial system. We have asked the federal government to work with its provincial counterparts to deal with many of the problems that exist in the provincial system.

The member knows we in the Liberal Party have championed the early learning head start program. We are the ones who put that forward. It has a demonstrable preventive effect on reducing crime.

Does the member not see that Bill C-25 is actually a good thing for the citizens of our country and the citizens of our province of British Columbia?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this third reading debate on Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody). The Conservatives have given this bill the nickname of the truth in sentencing act, which can also be used to refer to the act.

I have many problems with this piece of legislation. I do not think that will come as a surprise to anyone. I have often had great difficulty with crime and punishment measures put forward by the Conservative government. This bill certainly fits the kinds of concerns that I have expressed since I was elected in 2004.

This legislation would give people, before they are found guilty or sentenced for a crime, who are held in a pretrial remand centre, extra credit for the time they spend in jail before being convicted. This bill puts a limit on that. We have seen over the years in Canada the process develop where regularly, almost automatically, people are given two for one credit for their time in pretrial custody before they are convicted. This bill would limit that to one day for every day served in pretrial custody, and in certain exceptional cases it would be allowed to go to one and a half days for one day.

I have trouble with that. The key reason goes back to one of the fundamental principles of our justice system: the presumption of innocence. We have to maintain our belief in some of these very fundamental issues that have been developed over many centuries in our justice system. I believe that the presumption of innocence is one of the very key and fundamental principles of our legal system.

This bill is a direct challenge to that. It says that folks held in custody before they are convicted of a crime are not eligible for any consideration for the time spent in jail before they are found guilty or sentenced for the crime they are alleged to have committed. We need to keep in mind the principle of the presumption of innocence. When people are held before they are given the opportunity to face their accusers and the charges in a court of law, we are delaying justice, and we know that justice delayed is not justice served.

I am also concerned that this is another attempt to limit judicial discretion. We have often heard from Conservatives their disdain, that is the only word to use, for judges having any discretion when it comes to sentencing. I happen to believe that it is needed in the system. We can be armchair judges and react to decisions by judges on sentencing, but when we have not sat through the full trial, followed the case from beginning to end, heard all of the evidence or made the judgments about the accused, it is altogether too easy to decide that some judge has let someone off with a light sentence.

I believe, for the most part, that judges do their jobs well, and judicial discretion is crucial in their ability to do that important work on our behalf. It is important for us to have a measure of judicial discretion built into our system. This bill takes aim at that by trying to put a limit on the ability of judges to recognize time spent in jail and remand centres before someone is convicted of a crime or has gone to court. Those are two very important principles that this legislation challenges.

The practice of allowing two for one credits for pretrial custody arose from concerns about conditions in our justice system, specifically conditions in pretrial centres. The people who have taken a look at our prison system in Canada know that pretrial centres are among the worst in the country. Conditions are often unbelievably horrible. One of the reasons the system of two for one credits has come to be is the problems in the remand system.

My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh, when he was speaking at second reading on this bill, quoted a story from The Globe and Mail. It was an article, an op-ed piece, written by a Toronto lawyer which appeared in the April 1 issue.

That lawyer described the pretrial conditions for one of his clients, a man named Pavel. Here is what he said, and I think it bears repeating:

Pavel slept on the floor next to the toilet. He was smaller than his cell mates, and most nights he didn't dare challenge them for one of the two bunks. He spent 20 hours a day locked with other men in a 12 by 8 cell designed for one. The staff was on strike, so his cell was not cleaned for two months. Because he was too small to fight for space at the table, he ate his meals on the toilet. Living in filth, he developed a skin disease. His hair fell out in patches, but he was lucky, at least he hadn't caught the tuberculosis that was spreading throughout the detention centre.

That is a graphic example, and maybe it is a particular example given the particular circumstances in that detention centre at the time. I believe it was in the Don Jail, but I could be wrong about that.

We know that overcrowding is a regular feature. Certainly in the pretrial centres in British Columbia, double bunking, triple bunking is the usual practice. We know the conditions in the pretrial centres in British Columbia are absolutely unconscionable. They go against everything Canada has committed to under international agreements in terms of its obligations to a standard of one prisoner per cell with full facilities.

I think most of us can appreciate why that would be the best circumstance for someone in custody in our country. We are not making that standard in many jurisdictions in Canada. I think that is why the practice of two for one credit largely has become automatic. It has been tested in the courts. The member for Hochelaga read from the decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on two for one. The judges noted that it came from a concern about conditions. He also noted they were concerned about being too rigid and cutting back on the ability of judges to exercise discretion given the circumstances of the case before them.

I think we need to really pay attention to conditions in the remand centres and in our prison system. We know there are no programs in provincial remand centres. Given the harsh conditions, given the fact that there are no programs for people, this is a very difficult place to be incarcerated. It is not that this should be easy, but this is particularly troubling given our hopes for standards in those areas and given the kinds of conditions that have developed in this country.

The federal correctional investigator, Mr. Howard Sapers, has expressed concerns about the situation in our federal penitentiary system, the system people go to after they have been convicted, after they get out of a pretrial centre if they have been held prior to their sentencing. We know the situation there is not much better. There are many concerns about what is going on in the federal system once people get out.

Mr. Sapers recently told the committee that was looking at this bill:

It bears noting that the pervasive effects of prison crowding reach far beyond the provision of a comfortable living environment for federal inmates. It stretches the system beyond its capacity to move offenders through their correctional plans in a timely fashion. It has negative impacts on the protection of society itself, as offenders are incarcerated for a greater portion of their sentence, only to be released into the community ill-prepared and then supervised for shorter periods of time.

He continued:

As it stands now, offenders have to contend with long waiting lists for programs; cancelled programs because of insufficient funding or lack of trained facilitators; delayed conditional release, because the lack of capacity to provide programs means offenders cannot complete their correctional plans; and more time served behind walls without correctional benefit. This situation is becoming critical. More and more offenders are released later in their sentences too often not having received the necessary programs and treatment to increase their chance of success once in a community.

That is the situation in our federal system after people are sentenced and incarcerated. It bears repeating that much of what Mr. Saper is talking about is not even a consideration in the pretrial system. That gives rise to the very serious concerns that people have had about pretrial incarceration and the conditions people face in those systems.

There were issues raised at the committee when it was looking at this bill about how this legislation would affect particular groups in our society.

Mr. William Trudell, the chair of the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, brought a particular example of how this law might affect women in Yukon and women who are in the criminal justice system. He reported on what a member of the council had reported was happening in Yukon, how this two for one credit was being applied there and why it was important. This is what the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers representative said:

Let me just share with you what our Yukon representative said. This kind of puts it in perspective. Men in the Yukon receive 1.5 to one and women receive two to one. This is because they are housed together in one jail. Because the majority are men, the men have access to any programming that is offered--very little, the library, the yard access--whereas women are kept separate and usually get one hour out of their dorm in a day. In addition, there is only one halfway house that provides bail beds, and they do not accept women. Therefore, women have less opportunities for bail than men.

That example makes it quite clear that there is a necessity for taking into account the conditions that women in Yukon face when they are held before trial. The situation is very different from that of men in Yukon. Therefore, the system has developed where there is a different credit for time being served pretrial in Yukon. When there is little or no programming, and the programming in this case was access to a library and an exercise yard and the women did not even really get that, it shows some of the problems that arise when we try to put hard and fast limits on the sentencing provisions, on the two for one credit, and the discretion of judges to respond to the conditions in the system.

We need to consider these particular situations. Aboriginal people are often overrepresented in our criminal justice system and therefore, it is logical to assume that the kind of situations we are discussing in this legislation are more likely to affect aboriginal people in Canada. Certainly we have heard time and time again how the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our criminal justice system is something that needs to be addressed, it is something that extends from deeply entrenched and systemic racism in this country, and yet this legislation takes no consideration of those factors in looking at the situation of our criminal justice system.

Although we recognize that the application of two for one is often automatic, it is not universal. In the Khawaja case, the judge made a very deliberate statement of not applying any presentencing credit for the time that Mr. Khawaja served in jail and was very clear about why he felt that would be inappropriate. I have to say that the discretion can go the other way, as well. Certainly, Justice Rutherford in that case took it upon himself to make that kind of decision in that case. It is another example about why judicial discretion is an important factor in all of this.

There was an attempt to amend the legislation at second reading but, unfortunately, none of the amendments were accepted by the other parties. I want to thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for making a valiant effort to do that.

We could be doing other things to fix the system. We could be trying to ensure a speedy trial for people who are charged with a crime. Prosecutors are overloaded. The provincial government in British Columbia took steps recently to reduce funding for prosecutors, which was absolutely the wrong direction in which to go. If anything, prosecutors need more resources so that they can do their work in a timely fashion and ensure that the system is supported through their able advice and work. Unfortunately, that is not the case in many of our jurisdictions. There is nothing in this bill that would increase the resources available to provinces to ensure appropriate prosecution, to ensure the timelines of that, or even to improve conditions in provincial remand centres.

We have seen the difficulties with legal aid in many jurisdictions. In Ontario legal aid lawyers are taking a very strong stand against the remuneration they are paid. It is another example of a flaw in our system that complicates the system unnecessarily and could be addressed if governments would provide appropriate resources for that. How many people are in pretrial because they are not getting the appropriate legal advice they need and do not have the kind of access they need to a legal aid lawyer who could properly attend to their situation and their case.

Another concern is that the legislation itself may increase backlogs by its very application. The concern is that if we are removing discretion and making the process of getting increased credit for time spent presentence and that a more formal application process for that time is required, that will require more detailed sentencing hearings in the process. Witnesses would need to be called. That process in itself would make certain cases go longer.

This is something that has not been thought through particularly carefully. Also, there is the concern that if we are removing the possibility of this kind of credit, there will be fewer guilty pleas in the system and it will cause the need for more trials and longer and more complicated trials just because of that.

That is another crucial factor we need to take into consideration with the bill before us. It seemed like a good idea until it was fully implemented and some of these problems came to the fore. It does not have the desired effect of making the system fairer or of speeding up the system. Surely one of our goals in terms of the delivery of criminal justice in Canada is to make sure that people have timely access to that, and that the time, if they are being held before their trial, is very limited, that they proceed to trial and have a decision on their case as quickly as possible. I do not think we do enough to ensure that actually happens in our current system.

Maybe if the legislation had said that we might take measures to reduce the credit offered for pretrial sentencing conditionally, if progress was made about how long it takes to go to trial in Canada, if progress was made on conditions regarding overcrowding and programming in pretrial, if there were specific criteria established to judge the circumstances of the criminal justice system and say that the standard that is developed for very good reason has been two for one and because of the conditions, it has almost been automatic, but if certain benchmarks are made in the system, we might consider reducing that.

That might have been a better piece of legislation, to make it conditional on our performance in delivering a fair and just criminal justice system. This bill once again makes an arbitrary decision about what would be appropriate in these circumstances and limits the discretion that is available in these circumstances. I am not sure that is the appropriate direction in which to go.

Across the country there have been stories about people who deliberately delay their trial so that they can take advantage of this two for one sentencing offer. A lot of these stories are anecdotal. There was little hard evidence produced at the committee to support that it was going on. Many lawyers said they would see that as misconduct if they were recommending to a client to do that, or if they themselves were delaying a trial just to take advantage of that sentencing option.

That is the reason for moving on this. We need to see some clear evidence that that is going on. Until then, I cannot accept the fact that it is. I have real problems with this. I have real problems with the conditions in our prison system and in our pretrial facilities. I will not be able to support this legislation.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the whip's office for letting me speak. I am pleased to start the week off by joining in the debate on Bill C-25, which the Bloc Québécois supports.

With our sense of balance and our healthy common sense, we are able to separate the good bills from the bad. When a bill is good for Quebec, we support it, and when it is bad, we do not support it. This is because our only loyalty is to Quebeckers.

We support Bill C-25, a measure we have been calling for since 2007. In 2007, I led a working group for the Bloc that also included the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, my colleague from Ahuntsic and my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. Together, we built a platform of justice measures that was a far cry from the logic of mandatory minimum sentencing, which we now know has very little positive, deterrent impact.

We put together an election platform consisting of a dozen recommended measures. These measures became an integral part of the party's platform. In the recommendations I made to my caucus, it was noted that, in a way, the court system rewards offenders in pre-sentencing custody by reducing their sentences by two days for every day of custody, once the sentence is known. This makes no sense. It seems to us that this measure is rather implausible and discredits the administration of justice.

The report I submitted to the leader of the Bloc Québécois in 2007 recommended eliminating two-for-one credit, abolishing automatic parole after one-sixth of the sentence is served and making parole contingent on real, conclusive evidence of rehabilitation. We want to tackle organized crime and the fact that our society authorizes the open display of symbols that frighten and intimidate. I am thinking here of the insignia the Hells Angels use to terrorize and intimidate communities.

Those are the measures we have proposed. I will repeat that the Bloc Québécois has never been captivated, enthralled or motivated by the concept of mandatory minimum sentences. I deplore the fact that, in all the bills presented, the government has succumbed to the facile idea that just because mandatory minimum sentences are included in a bill it will make our communities safer.

I wrote a piece for La Presse, published on October 22, 2008, in which I demonstrated that judges can be somewhat over-liberal when granting credit for time served before sentencing. The principle exists and is dealt with in sections 719 through 721 of the Criminal Code. The amount of credit was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in a decision signed by Justice Arbour, on behalf of the majority. She later left the Supreme Court, as we know, to take up responsibilities with the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

In a 2000 ruling, R. v. Wust, Justice Arbour indicated the ratio to be applied when calculating the credit for time spent in pre-sentencing detention. In paragraph 45 of this Supreme Court ruling, in a text which set precedent and was adopted in all lower courts by way of the rule of stare decisis, she wrote:

In the past, many judges have given more or less two months credit for each month spent in pre-sentencing detention. This is entirely appropriate even though a different ratio could also be applied, for example, if the accused has been detained prior to trial in an institution where he or she has had full access to educational, vocational and rehabilitation programs. The often applied ratio of 2:1 reflects not only the harshness of the detention due to the absence of programs, which may be more severe in some cases than in others, but also reflects the fact that none of the remission mechanisms contained in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act apply to that period of detention.

We are talking about conditional release—or parole—and the time counted does not start from pre-trial custody. Justice Arbour added that:

“Dead time” is “real” time. The credit cannot and need not be determined by a rigid formula and is thus best left to the sentencing judge, who remains in the best position to carefully weigh all the factors which go toward the determination of the appropriate sentence, including the decision to credit the offender for any time spent in pre-sentencing custody.

Section 719 would therefore allow a judge to take into account remand custody, and the Supreme Court has validated the time ratio in use in judge-made law. The Supreme Court has created law that was not initially provided for by the legislation voted by Parliament. This is, however, a widespread practice in lower courts. This practice of deducting two days for each day remaining in the sentence might be, on the face of it, excessive.

I wrote an essay that has earned positive reviews. We are living in world where words of praise can be few and far between. This is a time of restraint, when few compliments are paid and showing consideration is something that is falling into disuse. It does wonders for one's self-esteem to be paid compliments. This essay was published in La Presse and resulted in several interviews for me in the various media.

It was based on Project Colisée, an investigation that went on for months and cost $38 million to the taxpayers, which is not an insignificant amount of money. Nowadays, investigations into organized crime can take months, and even years. They involve conducting electronic and in-person surveillance, of course, and often result in mega-trials due to the enormous amount of evidence collected. Project Colisée made it possible to lay charges against six of the most prominent figures of the Italian mafia in Montreal.

We even managed to get the head of the mafia in Montreal, in the person of Nicolo Rizzuto, sentenced. I will explain the perverse logic of pre-sentencing custody in the case of these people who are among society's most criminal element. It is understood that, in the case of the mafia and the higher echelons of organized crime as these people are, we cannot realistically offer them the possibility of rehabilitation.

I would like to tell you something that happened in my childhood. When I was somewhat younger, with my father, mother, brothers and sisters—we were five children—our days were happy, we were a united family and loved each other. In the 1970s, the government of Robert Bourassa set up a televised commission of public inquiry into organized crime—not just the mafia but even the Dubois brothers and the whole issue of tainted meat and other goods. We watched the commission of inquiry on television. At that time, I was not quite 10, but I know how closely Quebeckers followed this trial of organized crime and just how deeply organized crime was unfortunately rooted in our society.

And so, with Project Colisée, we managed to arrest and lock up six prominent figures from the mafia who represented a real threat to public safety. Despite the totally reprehensible record of these people in organized crime and because the rule went as far as the Supreme Court, the judge—if memory serves, it was Mr. Justice Bonin of the Quebec Court, criminal division—had no choice but to grant a pre-sentence credit this October.

I have very specific examples for you. Nicolo Rizzuto, the mafia godfather, an old man with heath problems, but who still had the audacity to do damage—even behind bars, charged with gangsterism and possession of proceeds of crime—was sentenced in 2008 to four years. However, because he was arrested in 2006 and had thus spent two years behind bars before his trial, he was freed at his trial, because two years of custody amounted to four years of pre-sentence credit, which was equal to his sentence.

Do members realize that the rules set by the Supreme Court, because in this case they apply sort of automatically, led to the release of the mafia godfather somewhat prematurely?

I have another example. Paolo Renda, charged with gangsterism and possession of proceeds of crime was sentenced to six years in prison. His sentence was reduced by four years. He had two to serve. The same is true in the case of another underworld individual well known to law enforcement officials, Rocco Sollecito, who was charged with gangsterism, possession of proceeds of crime and complicity. He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. His sentence was reduced by four years as a pre-sentencing credit. He had four years to serve.

Francesco Del Baso, Francesco Arcadi et Lorenzo Giordano, charged with gangsterism, possession of proceeds of crime and complicity were sentenced to 15 years in prison. Their sentence was reduced by four years, because they were in pre-sentencing custody. So, two years of custody led to a reduction of four years. They now have 11 years to serve.

Is it acceptable that in our justice system, the people who have successfully risen in the ranks—unfortunately—of organized crime get months or years of credit for pre-sentence time served because the Supreme Court came up with a two-for-one scheme?

I have to say that the government took some good advice when it decided to introduce Bill C-25. It finally listened to the Bloc Québécois, my colleagues and I, who have been campaigning for this since 2007. All the same we do not want to eliminate the two-for-one rule. The Bloc Québécois never suggested that it should be abolished. In general, in the administration of justice, the rule is that when people are arrested, they can be released on a promise to appear. The judge can determine the conditions, of course. They may have to surrender their passport, or be forbidden from leaving town or from meeting with certain people, but the general rule is release on a promise to appear.

In some cases, individuals charged with gangsterism under sections 467.11, 467.12 and 467.13 of the Criminal Code, made pursuant to 1997 anti-gang legislation, cannot be released because the charges are very serious. In some exceptional cases, those charged with terrorism or murder, or who are unlikely to comply with the terms of a conditional release, are remanded in custody prior to trial. They lose their freedom because they are in custody and do not have access to time toward parole or, most importantly, to rehabilitation programs. The reality of prison being what it is, pre-trial custody often subjects people to extremely difficult living conditions because prisons are overpopulated.

Does that mean that, as a society, we expect the two-for-one rule to be applied? Of course not. That is why the Bloc Québécois, in its usual wisdom, suggested a review of the equation in 2007 and recommended a one-for-one formula: reduce the sentence by one day for each day of pre-trial custody. That seemed fair to us.

The bill incorporates that proposal and I thank the government for that. This is one area we can actually agree on. Good ideas deserve to be shared. It is not a question of partisanship when an idea is constructive and benefits society. The Bloc Québécois has made a positive contribution in this Parliament on many issues regarding not only justice, but also intergovernmental affairs, employment insurance and foreign policy. We have always tried to act as enlightened spokespersons defending the values of Quebeckers.

The bill is balanced because, in some situations, judges can decide to grant not only one for one credit, but also one and a half for one. That is possible, but judges must justify their reasons for doing so and indicate them in the docket.

Once again, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. We examined it very carefully in committee, and we hope it will be sent to the other place and receive royal assent very quickly. We hope to see it become law in the next few months.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. In the first part of my speech, I mentioned that the Government of British Columbia had taken the leadership role in Canada on this issue.

We met, as I know my hon. friend did, with our provincial counterparts in British Columbia. They made their case very clearly, and that is why we in the Liberal Party support Bill C-25. We listened to our provincial counterparts in British Columbia. We are strongly supportive of this bill. I think we have made that very clear to the government.

However, we would also like to make sure that other issues are dealt with, too, in a wide variety of areas, including gang violence and cross-border organized crime issues, ensuring that our provincial police forces, and particularly the RCMP, have the resources to do the jobs they need to do. I spoke a little bit about that in the course of this bill.

I hope that government members work with us to enable this to happen.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 specifically eliminates, for most purposes, the ability of the courts to actually give two for one and even three for one credit for time spent in custody before trial and sentencing. I noticed that my colleague spent most of his time talking about issues other than Bill C-25.

One of the issues my colleague raised was a lack of resources at the provincial level in terms of providing services to inmates as well as the space required to house inmates at the provincial level. We are talking about sentences of less than two years at the provincial level.

Would the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca agree with me that it was the provinces, specifically the province of British Columbia and its attorney general and solicitor general, who actually requested that we move forward with this important legislation?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody). The Liberal Party believes this is very important legislation in fighting crime and we are therefore supporting the bill.

We listened to attorneys general. The driving force for the legislation came from the west, in large part from my province of British Columbia. My colleagues and I met with the attorney general of British Columbia at the time, who articulated very clearly the need for truth in sentencing and an effort to limit pretrial pre-sentencing custody time and give greater clarity.

Right now this is known as dead time and the numbers can be quite flexible and are up to a judge. It can be anything from one to one or one to three, commonly known as one to two. However, this did not reflect, in many ways, the wishes and desires of the public and the ability of our police officers and police forces to execute their duty to the citizens of our country to protect us from those who would do harm to us.

I will quote from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police on this issue as follows:

Public confidence in the criminal justice system demands that criminals receive just and proportionate sentences fitting their crime...this Bill, if passed, will bring greater clarity, transparency and accountability to the sentencing process...

We fully support this. In fact, the key messages I want to get across on behalf of my party is that we want to ensure our police officers and those who are tasked to execute justice in our country have the appropriate tools with which to catch, convict and sentence criminals. We also want to ensure the bill strikes a reasonable balance between ensuring that criminals serve complete sentences, while also maintaining a degree of judicial discretion to deal with instances where there are conditions that deem changes.

We support the fact that clarity and definition will be brought to the amount of pre-custody sentencing provisions, specifically the credit time spent in pre-sentencing custody will be limited and delineated by the bill. Our rationale for this is we have had consultations with our caucus members and with the attorney general and solicitor general of British Columbia. They explained the instances in which convicted criminals received abbreviated sentences, which eroded the public confidence in the judicial system, especially when convicted gang members were released sooner than their sentences warrant.

In my province of British Columbia gang violence has caused a significant erosion in the faith of the public in the ability of the justice system to protect us. The criminal gang violence that has occurred, particularly in and around the Lower Mainland, has claimed dozens of lives. This is unusual, but the fact that this has not been arrested speaks to the need for Parliament, working with our provincial counterparts, to deal with this cancer. Organized crime is a cancer in our society. I will talk a bit about that later because it has caused incredible frustration among our citizens and our police officers, who try day in and day out to deal with this challenge.

I want to talk about a certain aspect of the bill that deals with what happens when people are convicted and they go into a remand centre before they go to trial. Historically the time before sentencing, if they are convicted, is deemed to be given one for one, two for one or even three for one value for the time that has been spent in the pre-conviction period of time, the time in custody.

We have found that the conditions are quite poor in the remand centres, those that are provincial two years less a day. We have to work with our provincial counterparts to deal with this issue. Most people who commit crimes and are convicted do not go to federal institutions of two years or more. They go into provincial institutions of two years less a day. This is often known as dead time, and the underlying problems of many of the people in these institutions, because of overcrowding or a lack of resources, are not dealt with. What are those problems?

I recently met with people at Correctional Service Canada. I asked about the conditions in the provincial jails and the population of individuals that came to their attention. In fact, when I was in university, I used to work in a provincial jail. The situation in many cases has not changed in terms of the population. Nowadays more than 50% of the people in jail are deemed to have fetal alcohol syndrome/fetal alcohol effects.

For those who do not know this, FAS/FAE is the leading cause of preventable brain damage in children at birth. The consumption of alcohol in certain quantities, particularly in the first trimester, causes irreparable brain damage. The average IQ is 70 to 75. Once people who have FAS/FAE start growing up, people do not understand them. They do not understand their behaviour, which is out of the realm of what is considered “normal”. When they go to school, they cannot concentrate, study or learn. The teachers do not know how to handle them. They fall through the cracks.

The tragedy of this is it is entirely preventable. I have been here almost 16 years and there has not been any reasonable, effective legislative solution. I put forward a bill some years ago, which took the line of what we would do when people had a psychiatric problem. When people have psychiatric problems and are psychotic, they come to the emergency department. The emergency room physician can write a note, with another physician, that will put them in hospital, against their wishes, if they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or to other people or cannot take care of themselves. As emergency physicians, we do this when circumstances warrant. There are very narrow definitions for this, but the outcome of it is it prevents people from hurting themselves or somebody else and it enables them to get the care they require.

If a woman is keeping the fetus to term, then one could apply the same rationale. In doing so, we could prevent FAS/FAE from occurring. In fact, there was a case in Winnipeg where a women had a couple of babies with brain damage because of the consumption of alcohol. However, her third baby, because she was put in hospital to receive care, did not have FAS/FAE or brain damage. She admitted that the only reason her third child did not have FAS/FAE was because she was brought to the hospital, albeit against her will, for a short period of time, which enabled her to get her life back in order.

I know it is a hard and difficult thing, but it at least warrants debate in the House.

The other thing is two-thirds of the people in jail have what we call a dual diagnosis. They have a psychiatric problem and they have a substance abuse problem. In speaking to police officers and those who work in our corrections system, one of the big gaps is the fact that most people who are convicted by the courts go into a provincial institution, where the kinds of treatment they need for their psychiatric problems, substance abuse issues and skills training simply are not there.

Therefore, we have a revolving door of tossing people out of the institutions. The recidivism rate is high. They commit more serious crimes and eventually wind up in federal institutions, where they have a much greater chance of receiving the type of treatment they require and preventing them from committing the same types of punitive acts against our citizens.

The current situation does not serve the public's right to be protected. It does not serve the ability of our police officers to protect us. It does not serve the ability of an individual who has committed a crime to receive the types of rehabilitation required in order not to recommit often more serious crimes when he or she gets out.

In this way, the current system does not work. I can only impress upon the federal government to work with its provincial counterparts, who have their hands out and are asking for help in dealing with this issue for the sake of the citizens of our country.

The other issue I would like to address is the issue of victim rehabilitation. It is something that we in the Liberal Party have been very supportive of. We want to work with the provinces to make sure that our victims receive the care, support, treatment and rehabilitation that they require when they have been victimized.

In my personal view, they also need to be able to have a greater sense of knowledge of what happens when the person who has victimized them leaves jail. This is particularly important for those who have been subjected to violent crime, assaults and sexual violence. It is also important for the families of those who have been subjected to these very serious offences.

I had a case in my riding where a lady was murdered by an individual. The family members had very little knowledge of the location of this person who had committed the crime, when the person was being released and where the person was being released. It so happens that they found out that the person was going to be released in their community. In fact, this scared them and understandably so.

One of our objectives has to be the protection of innocent civilians, those who have been victimized and the family members of those who have been victimized. They must also be brought into this and treated with respect, and given the care that they deserve. That has to be top of mind in the justice system when we are dealing with these issues.

I also want to talk for a second about some of the other specific areas that police officers have been asking for. I am going to enumerate some of them in a list as solutions that the Conservative government should be embracing.

The first is in the area of disclosure. The current requirements for disclosure provide unrealistic demands upon the police and result in tensions between police and the Crown. There are inconsistent practices over who bears the cost of disclosure, how disclosure is prepared, and how documents are vetted. We also see a great benefit in the clarification, consistency and codification of disclosure standards. Specific recommendations are needed to address many elements of disclosure. Greater clarity is needed in this area.

The second area involves witness protection. Police officers have been proposing the formation of an independent office for witness protection, funded jointly at the federal, provincial and territorial levels. This would recognize the shared responsibility for justice. It would make the program accessible to all Canadian police agencies.

The third area deals with the matter of prolific offenders. Many of us feel the need for a legislative definition of chronic offender status. Penalties that emphasize that incarceration is a means of reducing the possibility of victimization are absolutely and fundamentally important. We also recognize that the number of people who go out and commit offence after offence is very small. It is a huge source of difficulty and an enormous source of uncertainty on the part of the public. It also causes an erosion of the confidence that our police officers have in the justice system. The courts have to deal with repeat offenders in a more effective way.

It is unthinkable for most of our citizens, and to us, to comprehend how people who commit offence after offence either do not have their underlying problem dealt with or are of sound mind and have made a conscious decision to keep on offending and violating their responsibility and duty to the general public to be law-abiding citizens. Individuals who are mentally competent are the individuals who should have a much stiffer series of penalties applied to them in the interest of public safety.

Fourth, there is a capacity deficit that needs to be addressed. A deficit exists throughout the criminal justice system, particularly with respect to the police capacity issue caused by an increasing complexity in criminal law. The complexities have been recognized in the context of the court process, but largely overlooked in the policing context.

What the RCMP does today versus what it did 20 years ago is very different. A much larger amount of work is being placed on the shoulders of RCMP officers. The whole post-911 terrorism challenge has been placed primarily on the shoulders of our RCMP officers, but unfortunately, the resources have not come with those added responsibilities. This is a grave issue.

Not only is there a lack of resources in terms of money but there is also a lack of resources in terms of manpower. The RCMP and other police forces in Canada have to pick and choose what they are able to do because there are only so many of them and so many hours in a day. They have to make some very conscious decisions as to what they can actually pursue and cases fall by the wayside as a result, and are not prosecuted in our courts. As a result, the public loses. Justice is not seen to be done because justice is not being done. The federal government needs to deal with this as well.

When we were in power, we authorized an increase in the number of RCMP officers. The government promised to do that also, but has not backed it up with the resources needed to accomplish this goal. It was, unfortunately, a serious broken promise on the part of the government.

Disclosure issues need to be addressed, as I mentioned before, on the part of the RCMP and other police forces in Canada. Our courts are entangled, and justice is sometimes dragged out for a long period of time. As a result, justice is not happening.

If we want to get down to the root of the issue and talk about true prevention, then one of the most extraordinary things we could do, and I have mentioned this dozens of times in the House, is set up an early headstart program for kids.

In the last year there has been a lot of interesting and dynamic scientific research done with respect to the evolution of the brain, particularly early in a child's life. If a fetus is subjected to alcohol and other toxic substances during the first trimester, then the brain could be damaged and the child could suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects.

A child really only needs one solid person in his or her life, and that individual does not even have to be the parent of that child. The security provided to the child through that bonding can have a profound positive outcome for the child.

A friend of mine in Toronto, Tamba Dhar, started a group called Sage Youth. She works with immigrant children who speak neither French nor English and whose parents are often refugees. These children were falling through the cracks. She established a mentorship program and by doing so, these children face an incredibly positive outcome.

The easiest thing for the government to do if it wants to address the issue of crime prevention is to work with the provinces to implement an early learning headstart program. My colleague put together such an arrangement with the provinces when we were in government, but unfortunately the Conservative government tore up that agreement.

I did not get into the issue of what is happening in aboriginal communities. A disproportionate number of aboriginal people are in jail. This issue has to be deal with. This issue goes to the heart of some fairly fundamental issues such as exclusion, a lack of rights, a lack of caring, and a discriminatory Indian Act that in my view should be torn up and thrown away because it separates first nations people from everybody else in a negative way.

I hope the government works with us and pursues the bill. The Liberal Party supports Bill C-25 in the interest of justice for all.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody), be read the third time and passed.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have been talking about Bill C-25 for some time already, and I just want to point out that the Bloc Québécois was, once again, miles ahead of the government on this issue.

For several years now, we have been urging the government to eliminate the remand custody credit. I was looking for the right term. I also had “one-sixth of the sentence” in mind because the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill a few years ago that would have eliminated the one-sixth practice for offenders. The reason it took me a minute is that the Bloc Québécois introduces a lot of bills about justice in an effort to ensure fairness.

We have two very good colleagues, the member for Hochelaga and the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, both of whom are experts in matters of justice. Our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was once Quebec's public safety minister. Now you understand why it took me a minute to remember. The Bloc Québécois has introduced so many excellent bills on justice that it is easy to get them mixed up.

The Conservatives do not give us many reasons to celebrate when it comes to justice, but Bill C-25 is one, at least. The Bloc Québécois has strongly supported the measure in the bill since 2007. The Bloc Québécois has been talking about this for over two years now, which is a long time. On June 15, 2007, the Bloc Québécois proposed a series of recommendations about important changes to the Canadian justice system. These measures called for a more balanced justice system that is adapted to new realities, has a real impact on crime, and most importantly, avoids following the American model based on repression, a model whose negative outcomes are all too visible.

We are seeing this a lot particularly with this dogmatic, Conservative government, which is trying, through every possible means, especially with minimum sentences, to copy the American model, which simply does not work.

Earlier my colleague said that Canadian prisons were full to capacity. I invite him to go the United States to see what it is like there. He will soon realize that, compared to them, we should not feel so bad. American prisons are packed and the crime rate there is extremely high. There are many other reasons, apart from how the justice system itself operates. The gun registry comes to mind, something the Americans do not have. The free flow of firearms is also a serious problem in the United States, which means that a lot more crimes are committed with firearms there.

Earlier I mentioned some of the remarkable qualities of my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. He recently explained to all the members of the Bloc Québécois that Canada has, if I am not mistaken, about 100 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants, while the United States has about 736 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. As we can see, copying the American model would be a serious mistake.

I must say, Quebeckers worry when we see the Conservative government acting in this way, whether we are talking about minimum sentences, the gun registry or its overall, general views on crime.

The Conservatives say they are tough on crime and they say so in an aggressive way. They are trying to show that they know what they are talking about. Yet police associations across Canada are criticizing this government. They are saying that, apart from a few photo ops with police officers, there has been no real, concrete action. There is still a serious shortage of police officers. The Conservative government boasts about hiring them and making huge investments, but apart from some nice announcements and empty promises, we have seen absolutely nothing.

Let us look at how Quebec manages public safety and justice.

Our approach is much more comprehensive and focuses more on integration and prevention. Quebec's approach is to ensure that the criminal does not commit crimes rather than arresting criminals once they have committed crimes, as the Conservative government would have it. That is the objective of Quebec and especially our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

Quebec, represented by the Bloc Québécois, has a very good understanding of justice issues and does a good job of defending them. The proof is that in Quebec only about 40 crimes involving firearms are committed each year, which is an extremely small number. We have a very low crime rate. There is little crime in Quebec. I am extremely proud of that and, above all, it is the result of the way we manage public safety and justice.

The Bloc Québécois has presented measures that reflect the values of Quebeckers. These measures are primarily based on prevention, rehabilitation, social and economic integration, and a better distribution of wealth.

As I was saying, unfortunately, all too often, people who are going to commit crimes are poor. A study was published—whether or not we agree with it—which stated that during a recession, the crime rate increases because people have a great deal less money. We can readily deduce that there may be a correlation between poverty and the crime rate. The poorer people are, the greater their needs and, unfortunately, the more they will commit crimes, not because of need—because one never needs to commit a crime—but because it may be their only way out.

Therefore, we have to do more than just put people in jail. We have to help them with education, job searches and job creation. We have to try to take these people and put them back into the labour force by giving them a hand up and thus ensuring that we lower the crime rate.

Our proposals included streamlining the parole system, stepping up the fight against organized crime and providing better funding for the national crime prevention strategy.

Simply put, when a person is arrested for committing an offence under the Criminal Code, he must be brought before a judge as quickly as possible. At this stage, the crown attorney must inform the defendant of the charges against him. While the defendant is awaiting trial, the judge has two options: he can release the defendant, with or without conditions, if he feels that the defendant is not at risk of reoffending, or the judge may order that the defendant be detained until sentencing, if the defendant is dangerous.

If the judge chooses to detain the defendant, the period leading up to sentencing is called time served in remand or time in custody. After the trial, the judge must give an appropriate punishment to the guilty party. That is the sentence. The Criminal Code and related jurisprudence set out some criteria to guide the court.

I digress, but earlier I spoke a little about minimum sentences. These minimum sentences dismiss the criteria in the jurisprudence, and remove the judges' ability to think freely and use discretion in giving a fair sentence to any criminal.

As it stands, to determine the punishment for someone found guilty of a crime, the court must take into account all the time the individual spent in custody since the crime was committed. Although it is left to their discretion, judges not only generally take into account time in custody, but also apply the two-for-one rule. This means that time in custody counts two-for-one, and in some cases, judges have even gone as far as counting it as three-for-one.

This calculation method stems from the fact that few if any programs or activities are available to inmates during the trial period. Moreover, their detention conditions are poor and correctional facilities are overcrowded. Since the bill was introduced, we have discussed at length the serious shortcomings in overpopulated penitentiaries.

We do not want to leave this out of this debate, because it is an extremely important issue. However, we are first and foremost legislators, and we have to make the law that makes up the Criminal Code. We must also develop and introduce laws and then pressure the government for the necessary financial and human resources. We must ensure that this bill is fully enforced.

This calculation method stems from the fact that penitentiaries are overcrowded. In addition, time spent in pre-sentencing custody is not taken into account in calculating eligibility for full parole or statutory release. For all these reasons, judges tend to give two-for-one credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody.

On March 27, 2009, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-25 for first reading in the House of Commons. The bill has to do with sentencing. The principles of sentencing are found mainly in part XXIII of the Criminal Code, in section 718 and the sections that follow.

The bill is intended to eliminate any possibility that a judge will give two-for-one credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody. Clause 3 of the bill sets out this principle by limiting the credit for that time to a maximum of one day for each day spent in custody. As well, and only if the circumstances justify it, the bill allows a credit of one and one-half days for each day spent in custody, unless the person was kept in custody because of his criminal record or a breach of probation. In that case, no greater credit may be granted, regardless of the conditions in which the offender was held during his trial.

With respect to that measure, the Bloc Québécois recognizes that in some specific and very exceptional situations, it may be appropriate to subtract time served before and during the trial at a rate of a day and a half for each day in custody from the sentence. If that results in a reduction equivalent to 50% of the days spent in remand, in some cases, that would not discredit the justice system. There are cases involving conditions of detention ill suited to the person's health. In all cases, when a judge reduces the sentence in consideration of time served in pre-sentencing custody, the judge must justify that decision, record the reasons for it in the file and detail how the guilty person's sentence was calculated.

For more than two years now, the Bloc Québécois has recommended that this rule be eliminated, so we are pleased with this measure because the reason for this practice no longer reflects the reality of today's prison system. Along with the fact that legal cases are getting longer and more complex, this practice supports the popular notion that sentences are too lenient, discredits the administration of justice and frustrates victims and their families, who sometimes see the offenders turned loose shortly after sentencing.

People often get the sense that we are too soft on some criminals. I understand some of the victims. I also understand how the parents, friends and colleagues of victims who have been brutally murdered feel when the criminal goes free. The murderer may be sentenced to 10 or 15 years in jail, but gets out after serving barely 4 or 5 years.

The loved ones of victims might feel the justice system is faulty, since criminals are released much more quickly. Of course, that is all because of the two-for-one time. Here is an example. Now, if an accused spends six months in pre-sentencing custody and is sentenced to two years in prison, his sentence will likely last only one year. This bill would fix that anomaly.

When it comes to justice, the Bloc Québécois firmly believes that the most effective approach is always prevention. We have to attack crime at its roots. As I said at the beginning of my speech, justice is not simply about sentencing. It is not enough to be tough on crime, as the Conservatives like to say. That creates problems, because they have blinders on that prevent them from seeing the rest of the problem and the seriousness of the situation.

There are factors that push an individual to become a criminal. I do not believe that a person is not born fundamentally bad, but that they become bad, unfortunately, because of misfortunes, problems or bad luck. We must try to prevent crime. We must do a lot of prevention and education. We must find and target the factors that push these people to commit crimes, and try to eliminate as many as possible.

That being said, the Bloc is aware that the existing legal system needs considerable improvement, and that some changes to the Criminal Code are necessary. The government's duty is to intervene and use the tools at its disposal to make sure that Quebeckers and Canadians can live peacefully and safely. On June 15, 2007, in response to the Conservatives' ideological approach, the Bloc Québécois recommended a number of measures.

This constructive approach is already making a difference. In budget 2008, the Conservative government implemented some of the ideas put forward by the Bloc Québécois. It provided additional funding to the national crime prevention strategy and to crown prosecutors.

Since coming to power, the Conservatives have taken a rigid, ideological approach to justice. Although some of the measures introduced have had some positive elements, others have clearly gone too far and have been ineffective, or even counterproductive. That was true of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which focused more on imprisonment than on Quebec's very pertinent success with reintegration and rehabilitation.

During the 2008 election campaign, the Conservatives said they wanted to throw young people aged 14 to 16 in jail. Personally, after having met with many young people, I find it really sad to see the Conservatives adopting such a rigid, dogmatic approach whereby they want to send our young people to prison.

As I said earlier, we should instead focus our efforts on rehabilitation. We must help these young people understand what led them to crime. We must give them a hand up, instead of foolishly sending them to prison, where they can attend crime school. If these young people come into contact with people serving 20 or 25 year sentences, they will learn the tricks of the trade.

The Bloc Québécois does not understand that. I think all of Quebec had a hard time understanding that during the last election campaign. Quebeckers clearly demonstrated this by sending 49 Bloc Québécois members, rather than Conservatives, to the House of Commons.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-25, the truth in sentencing act. I intend to go through the bill briefly and point out where we in the Liberal Party can in principle support the bill and where we have a few problems.

I might say at the outset that the overall bill is one we can support. However, along with a lot of other justice bills, it will put a lot of pressure on the system of rehabilitation and incarceration. As such, we want to be sure the government gets the message that even though these bills are coming down the pike, it should resource the corrections facilities and agencies in charge of those facilities with sufficient resources to do the job.

I might start with clause 1 of the bill itself, which says “Truth in Sentencing”. I understand the aim is to try to codify, to regularize, to give reasons for the time given in remand for sentences accorded.

However, there is something pejorative in “truth in sentencing”. It implies there was untruth in sentencing. Inasmuch as sentencing is a judicial function, I see this title as another example of the unrelenting attack that the government has had on the judiciary in general.

We know that upon the Prime Minister being elected, or maybe it was just prior, he talked about Liberal judges. Judges are judges are judges. Once they becomes judges, there ought to be more respect for them. I find that a little objectionable.

I wish the Attorney General, the parliamentary secretary and the government in general would take a little more care to step away from the Reaganesque or Bushesque habit, it seems, to tell the public through the label what kind of legislation they are proposing rather than concentrating on the actual impact of the legislation.

Clause 2 talks about amending section 515 of the Criminal Code by adding a section that is trying to get justices to put in writing the details of what credit, if any, they are going to give for remand time. It is a good idea.

I think judges across the country will embrace this idea. Instead of being given a form that is a bit vague as to how they arrived at the sentence and what, if any, credit they are giving for remand time, the form, which would be new form 21 in clause 4, combined with the effect of clause 2, tells judges very clearly whether they are going to give extra credit for remand or bucket time, which is time in facilities where there are no programs, there may be issues of overcrowding and safety, and in some cases there is limited access to the outdoors, to recreation.

We have to understand that this is a province by province and institution by institution situation, which only an individual judge can deal with. A judge can look at the circumstances of the remand in question and give, even under this act, up to 1.5 days for one day served in remand. However, he or she must state the reasons. It is a good thing, and I think judges will look forward to having forms presented to them that make some sense.

The crux is found in clause 3, which amends subsection 719(3) of the Criminal Code. It says that the benchmark will be one day for one day in remand time. In circumstances, when reasons are given, it can be 1.5 days. In exceptional circumstances, where a person has already violated bail and therefore is not allowed to have this 1.5 days, we think there remains some discretion for judges to say that in certain circumstances 1.5 days would be given, unless that person has already violated bail and shown that he or she has no respect for the justice system.

I mentioned there is a new form 21, which judges will applaud. This law is a bit of a housekeeping arrangement. It tells judges and prosecutors that they have to clean up their paper trail as to how they treat people with their incarcerated time.

A national justice survey commissioned by the Department of Justice in 2007 shows there was general public approval for reducing sentences to compensate for time spent in pre-sentencing custody. A little more than three-quarters, 77%, were of the opinion that credit for time in pre-sentencing should be allowed in cases of non-violent offences. However, more than half believed, and this is the important part, that no credit should be allowed for persons convicted of serious violent crimes.

We concur with that. We think that is sensible. We do not always knee-jerk agree with what the Canadian public believes, but in this instance it seems to make sense to those in the House who ask why people in the justice system should get extra credit in the case of a very serious violent offence. We do not think that is correct.

What is disturbing is that there is this whole body of practice without reasons, which I frankly think is the lawmakers' fault. Lately we have been prorogued into inaction and all the bills have been jettisoned by the political appetite of the government in power on any day. We have had too many elections and too little work done on the housekeeping aspects of the Criminal Code. It has led to judges saying that in the absence of clear direction on how they are supposed to give a person credit for time spent in a horrible remand situation they are going to include it by deduction in the overall sentence. By sleuth, there has been a credit given without reasons. This says to judges that they have to give reasons there is remand time credit given.

Double time became the benchmark. By dereliction of duty, which parliamentarians have to share, it seemed that two-for-one became the benchmark of justices in this country. The courts have basically made that a common practice, but as in the case of Dadgar, a Quebec Court of Appeal case, it was never automatic. The public pronouncements that judges were giving two-for-one credits willy-nilly and that it was a rule is not exactly correct.

We did deal with this at committee, and I want to bring attention to the pressing need of the government to understand there is going to be a capacity crisis if it continues to bring in legislation that crowds our facilities. Don Head, of Correctional Service Canada, gave the following evidence:

In the long-term, CSC will have to look to construct more permanent accommodation, including the construction of new units or institutions to manage the population growth--

Notwithstanding the impacts of the bill,

And I think he was a bit in the crosshairs of everybody, especially government-side MPs, when he said:

--the Correctional Service of Canada is committed to continuing to fulfill its mandate to manage the sentences of federal offenders and to ensure public safety results--

I felt a bit sorry hearing him, because I am sure that if the shackles, using a bad corrections pun, were off him, he would say he does not have enough resources to ensure there will be adequate corrections facilities for the mandate he has been given.

More importantly, Howard Sapers, who is the corrections ombudsman, has basically said that the bill itself will lead to a significant increase in the offender population managed by CSC. It is very clear there is going to be more population, and it is not as clear in looking at items in the budget presented by the federal government that there will be adequate resources.

We feel this law will bring clarity to time served. We think that is a good thing. Judges are looking for direction and they would agree with this housekeeping aspect. But if as a consequence there are more people going to Correctional Service Canada facilities or provincial facilities, then it is very incumbent upon the government, the Minister of Public Safety, to ensure there are adequate resources to prevent conditions of overcrowding so we do not get in trouble with international human rights obligations, charter rights obligations and basic human obligations of being in conditions that are adequate.

It is not the concern of this bill, but it is very much the concern of the government, and I want to make sure we are on record as saying that the government better be concerned with it. It better be concerned with it because it is the government's duty and fiduciary obligation and we will hold its feet to the fire as this bill goes forward.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak at third reading to Bill C-25, a proposal to restrict the amount of credit awarded for time an accused person spends in pre-sentencing custody.

The proposed legislation is part of our government's commitment to tackle crime and make our streets safer.

It is similar to a proposal I made in my private member's bill, Bill C-393, referred to as the knife bill which passed second reading in the 39th Parliament. That bill was introduced because of the senseless slaying of Andy Moffitt from Brockville.

Bill C-25 will provide the courts with guidance in sentencing by limiting the amount of credit that the courts may grant to convicted criminals for the time they served in custody prior to their sentencing.

Courts have traditionally granted two to one credit for pre-sentencing custody to account for certain factors such as overcrowding in remand centres, lack of rehabilitative programs commonly available in sentence custody, and the fact that the time spent in remand did not count toward parole eligibility.

In some cases the credit awarded has been as high as three to one, especially where the conditions of detention were very poor, for example, because of extreme overcrowding.

Enhanced credit has contributed to the growing size of the remand population who are those accused in custody awaiting trial and sentencing across the country which is now greater than the population found in sentence custody in Canada's provisional and territorial jails.

Across Canada court cases are becoming more complex and therefore longer. Many criminal cases now involve 10 to 20 court appearances which translate into longer stays in remand. For example, in 1994-95, 34% of those in remand were being held for more than one week. Ten years later, 2004-05 those held for more than one week had grown to almost 45%. The result is that offenders spend less time in sentence custody because they spend too much time in remand.

All this adds up to the increase in the remand population compared to the sentence population of convicted criminals. This explains why provincial attorneys general and correctional ministers encouraged the Minister of Justice at their September 2008 meeting to limit credit for pre-sentence custody as a way to help reduce the growing size of their remand population.

The practice of awarding double or even triple credit for pre-sentencing custody puts the administration of justice into disrepute. It creates the impression that offenders are getting more lenient sentences than they deserve.

Canadians have told us loud and clear they would like to see more truth in sentencing by bringing the practice of giving double time credit for pre-trial custody to an end.

This is exactly what Bill C-25 does. It proposes that the general rule of limiting credit for pre-sentencing custody to one to one in all cases. However, it gives courts the discretion to grant up to one and a half days for every day spent in pre-sentencing custody where it is warranted. Those circumstances are not defined in the bill, but we would expect that severe overcrowding for example would be such a circumstance.

Where accused are remanded for having violated bail or because of their criminal record, the credit must be limited to one day for every day spent in pre-sentencing custody in all cases. These are factors that courts have recognized as warranting less than two to one credit for pre-sentencing custody.

The government will not allow extra credit for repeat offenders and for those who have violated their bail conditions.

Another problem with the current practice of awarding credit for pre-sentencing custody is that only the resulting term of full sentencing custody is reported and no statement of the consideration of pre-sentencing custody is communicated in the reasons for sentencing.

This is another problem that Bill C-25 proposes to address by requiring courts to note on the record the sentence that would have been imposed without credit, the amount of credit awarded, as well as the sentence imposed.

Courts would also be required to record that the offenders have been remanded because of their criminal record or because they have violated bail.

These requirements will meet several objectives including more clarity in how the length of the custodial sentence is determined and I believe that it will result in greater certainty and consistency, and will improve public confidence in the administration of justice.

As a result of this initiative, more offenders will now have a federal sentence of two years more and an increased number of federal offenders will be spending a longer time in federal custody.

From a rehabilitation perspective, this time in the federal system may present the opportunity for longer term programming that may have a positive impact on the offender.

I appreciate the support of our provincial and territorial partners for this legislative amendment to provide greater truth in sentencing. We are continuing to make laws to strengthen the justice system, and Bill C-25 is an important contribution to this objective.

I urge hon. members to support a quick and hasty passage of this bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody), be read the third time and passed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am only too happy to respond as I do every Thursday, with transparency, openness and in a spirit of co-operation with my colleagues across the way.

Today and tomorrow we will consider Bill C-15, the drug offence bill. However, as my colleague the Minister of Justice noted, the NDP members seem to be unnecessarily dragging the debate on the bill out. We will also consider Bill C-25, truth in sentencing; Bill C-34, protecting victims from sex offenders; Bill C-19, anti-terrorism; and Bill C-30, the Senate ethics bill.

Next week I intend to add to this list, Bill S-4, identity theft; and Bill C-6, consumer product safety.

As always, I will give priority to any bills that have been reported back from our hard-working standing committees.

In the response to the question about the allotted days, within the next week I will be designating Thursday, June 11 as an allotted day.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Liberal House leader often asks specific questions about specific bills on Thursday, so I hope you will entertain a few comments of my own.

First of all, I would like to recognize that, to date at least, there has been good co-operation from the opposition in moving our legislative agenda forward, not only in this chamber but in the other place as well. I want to thank the opposition for that co-operation.

However, yesterday we passed in this place, at all stages and without debate, Bill C-33, the bill that will extend benefits to allied veterans and their families. For this bill to become law, we need the same co-operation in the Senate. I would urge the opposition House leader to deliver that message to his senators.

I understand that the Governor General is here today and could actually give royal assent to the bill. It would not only be symbolic but a substantial gesture to those veterans who are reflecting on and participating in the 65th anniversary of D-Day on June 6, this weekend.

The other bill I want to specifically mention is Bill C-29, the agricultural loans bill. In one of his Thursday questions, the member for Wascana took an interest in this bill. He suggested, and I quote from Hansard, that “we might be able to dispose of it at all stages”. I appreciate that level of support for this important and time-sensitive bill in the House, but the member needs to coordinate his support with his Senate colleagues in order to get this bill passed and the increased loans made available to our farmers in a timely manner.

Any communication from the member for Wascana and any persuasiveness he may bring to bear upon his Liberal colleagues in the other place would be greatly appreciated by me and the government.

Justice and Human Rights

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

In accordance with the order of reference of Monday, April 20, your committee has considered Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody), and agreed on Monday, June 1, to report it without amendment.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm assuming other people got this letter from the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, from Mr. Trudell, seeking from this committee a decision not to proceed with Bill C-25 at this time. I'm not expecting that to happen, given the government's political engagement in the bill. But what it does highlight and what I would like to highlight is that this bill was prepared in circumstances where clearly--it's clear to me anyway--the government did not understand the implications of the bill.

We saw that most clearly put forward in terms of its implications, still with a number of unresolved issues to my mind, but very clearly from the evidence we heard from Professor Doob, that in fact it had all sorts of anomalous consequences, and that chart he prepared showed various examples. I believe most members of this committee certainly did not understand that. And I say that in all humility because I didn't fully understand them until I heard that presentation.

As well, I think this bill was prepared on the basis that defence counsel regularly advise, and the accused regularly accept the advice, that it is better to run out pretrial custody, by way of adjournments, so that you end up with a shorter sentence at the end. Again, both from the evidence we had from Professor Doob and from the lawyers, that clearly is not the case. In fact, the government could not point to any empirical study to show that that in fact was happening. It's a myth, quite frankly, that this is the reality. It's simply not happening. But the government didn't seem to appreciate that. And I say that in light of understanding that I believe most of the attorneys general and solicitors general from the provinces also believe that. But there isn't one empirical study that shows that, in fact, that is happening.

We also know--and we heard it from one of the prosecutors--that in fact the system is controlled by the judges. So adjournments are not given lightly. In most cases, the adjournments are being given around disclosure problems, not around defence lawyers trying to prolong pretrial custodial periods.

It's one of these bills that have come forward, and I don't believe it should be here. But I don't expect this committee to adjourn without proceeding with it, so I've brought these amendments forward because I think it at least resolves some of the major glaring problems with the bill as it's presently composed.

It was quite clear from Professor Doob's evidence--and we also heard it from Mr. Head from Correctional Service Canada--about the impact this will have on increased time in the federal prisons. We have no estimate. We don't know that and nobody on this committee knows it, but the reality is that the impact at the provincial level is going to be even more severe. But it was fairly clear from Mr. Head's evidence that at the federal level we are going to see an approximate 10% increase in the level of incarceration on an annual basis.

We do not have the ability to cope with that. We are way oversubscribed in terms of residential settings in the federal prison system. If that's a problem with the federal system, we can only imagine how much worse it's going to be at the provincial level if this bill goes through as presented.

What I'm proposing in the first amendment, which is to proposed subsection 719(3.1), is that the one day, being the standard that we're now going to impose with minor exceptions--which come in the next section--be increased to one and a half days. That would then become the standard.

I think Professor Doob was being as honest as he could with regard to this, and I think we've just heard it again from Mr. Daubney, that this is closer to what the reality is on average in the country, that it's closer to one and a half days for each day in pre-sentencing custody. So I think we need to bring that in line with the reality of what happens in most cases, and that's what the first NDP amendment would do.