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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order.

This is meeting number 27 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Monday, June 1, 2009.

You have today's agenda before you. We have three items to deal with.

During the first hour, by order of reference of Monday, April 20, 2009, we will be considering, clause-by-clause, Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody).

During the second hour, also by order of reference of Wednesday, April 22, 2009, we'll be hearing witnesses on the private member's bill, Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years).

After our regular meeting, we'll be meeting with a delegation of MPs from the Parliament of the Czech Republic. This will be an informal meeting with dinner, after we've adjourned the main meeting.

I want to remind you that this meeting is televised.

We'll move on to clause-by-clause on Bill C-25.

We'll postpone clause 1, which is the title, I believe, Madam Clerk, and move on to clause 2.

(On clause 2)

Monsieur Ménard.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to once again have the opportunity to address this committee, this time to discuss Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody).

As you know, the government promised to restrict the credit awarded at sentencing for pretrial custody for persons who were denied bail because of their criminal record or who violated bail. Currently, subsection 719(3) of the Criminal Code permits a court to take into account the time an accused awaiting trial has spent in pre-sentence custody when determining the sentence to be imposed on that person upon conviction. However, the code does not prescribe a particular mathematical formula for taking into account such time. Sometimes the credit awarded has been as high as three days for one, but courts have traditionally started giving, over the last number of years, two-for-one credit for time served in pre-sentence custody.

The practice was acknowledged in the decision of Regina v. Wust in 2000, where the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that although there is no mechanical formula for crediting pre-sentence custody, a two-for-one credit ratio in that case was appropriate to reflect the conditions of the individual. However, the Supreme Court stated that a different credit ratio could be applied, depending on the circumstances of the detention.

The current practice of awarding two-for-one credit for pre-sentence custody is problematic. For instance, in some cases it may encourage some accused to abuse the court process by deliberately choosing to stay in remand in the hope of getting a shorter term of imprisonment once they have been awarded credit for time served. Also, the population in remand centres now exceeds the population found in sentenced custody in Canada's provincial and territorial jails. This is why attorneys general and correctional ministers strongly support limiting credit for time served as a way to reduce, among other things, the growing size of their remand population.

The practice of awarding overly generous credit can put the administration of justice into disrepute because it creates the impression that offenders are getting more lenient sentences than they deserve. The public does not understand how the final sentence reflects the seriousness of the crime. For these reasons, the current practice of routinely awarding two-for-one credit must be curtailed.

There are cases where courts have awarded less than two-for-one, and the reasons they justified doing so support the proposal contained in Bill C-25. In those instances, the credit awarded was justified because the offenders were unlikely to obtain early parole because of their criminal record, or because the time spent in remand is a result of a breach of bail conditions. It is for all of these reasons that Bill C-25 proposes to provide, as a general rule, credit of one-to-one. However, where circumstances justify it, courts will be able to award up to one and a half days for every day spent in pre-sentence custody. In such cases the courts would be required to provide an explanation of those circumstances.

Now, those circumstances are not defined in the bill. This permits the court to have discretion to consider on a case-by-case basis where the credit to be awarded for time spent in pre-sentence custody should be more than the general rule of one-to-one. We would expect the application of a credit ratio of one and a half to one would be considered where, for whatever reason, the conditions of detention were extremely poor, or when the trial is unnecessarily delayed by factors not attributable to the accused.

Where accused, however, are remanded for having violated bail conditions or because of their criminal record, the credit will be limited to one day for every day spent in pre-sentence custody. As a result of this initiative, a greater number of offenders would now serve a federal sentence of two or more years, and there will be an increased number of federal offenders spending time in federal custody.

This time the federal system will present the opportunity for longer-term programming that may have a positive effect on the offender. We can't lose sight of that, getting that individual the kind of help they need. Explanations for the length of a sentence are usually provided in open court at the time of sentencing; however, judges are not specifically required to explain the basis for their decision to award pre-sentence credit. As a result, they don't always do so, and this deprives the public of information about the reasons credit is given for pre-sentence detention. It leaves them in the dark about why the pretrial detention should allow a convicted criminal to receive a discounted sentence.

This is why Bill C-25 proposes to require courts to note the sentence that it would have imposed without the credit, the amount of credit awarded, as well as the actual sentence imposed. This requirement will result in greater certainty and consistency and should improve public confidence in the administration of justice. These are important public policy objectives.

It is difficult for Canadians to understand how these short sentences, which are the result of giving a two-for-one credit for any time spent in pre-trial detention, can act as a condemnation of illegal behaviour, dissuade offenders from committing offences or protect society.

Canadians have told us loud and clear that they would like to see more truth in sentencing by ending the practice of giving double-time credit for pretrial custody.

Mr. Speaker, we are listening to their concerns. I appreciate the support of our provincial and territorial partners for this proposed legislative amendment to provide greater truth in sentencing. This is among the reasons why I call on all members of this committee to support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

As our witnesses have arrived, I think we can move right into the second part of our meeting. We will now hear witnesses on Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody).

Appearing before us again is the minister, of course, and we also have Department of Justice officials Catherine Kane and Matthias Villetorte.

Mr. Minister, you have 10 minutes to present, and then we'll open it up for questions.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for joining us on estimates, and then joining us in the next meeting, also, to talk about Bill C-25.

Perhaps, Minister, I could follow up on my colleague Brian Murphy's questions around the drug treatment courts. I share your support of the initiative. I don't share the view that the experiment hasn't worked or that there's no merit in expanding and in ensuring that it remains an option.

I know that in New Brunswick no drug treatment courts are currently operating. I know the New Brunswick government has perhaps talked to you and some of your officials about the possibility of having one on a pilot project basis in Saint John, New Brunswick. In your view, if there are only five or six operating in the country, can some of the money you referred to for drug treatment courts be used to expand? For example, how do you think we could support a smaller province with limited resources, such as New Brunswick, if it wanted to try to set one up in a part of the province like Saint John?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Since we are talking about budget accountability, I think that for questions on the budget, we should stay with a seven-minute round. However, we can go to five-minute turns for the second round, when we are discussing Bill C-25.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I call the meeting to order. This is meeting 20 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Today is Wednesday, May 6, 2009, and this meeting is called to address the main estimates.

You have before you the agenda for today. Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), we are reviewing the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2010. They've been referred to this committee.

Appearing before us is our Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada, the Honourable Rob Nicholson. As well, we have John Sims, the Deputy Minister of Justice, and Brian J. Saunders, our Director of Public Prosecutions.

I have just one additional note, members. During the second half of this meeting we're going to hear witnesses on Bill C-25, which is an act to amend the Criminal Code limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody. The bill has been referred to us, and appearing before us again will be the minister, together with Department of Justice officials Catherine Kane and Matthias Villetorte.

So to begin with, we'll review the main estimates. Welcome, Minister, Mr. Sims, and Mr. Saunders.

Minister, you know the process. You have ten minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions.

Criminal Code

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's comments.

We both sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. He is quite right. We have heard a number of witnesses speak about Bill C-14. These witnesses reminded us of the importance of taking action, especially given the current situation in several major cities, where there has been an increase in organized crime attacks using rifles. For example, the tragedies that have been unfolding in Vancouver over the past few months have really captured the public's attention and public concern is growing steadily.

I do not intend to speak for a long time. I had the opportunity to speak at second reading of this bill. As there were no amendments in committee, this bill has remained unchanged since second reading in this Parliament. You might remember the excellent speech that I gave on this bill. Since nothing has changed, I intend to be brief on this Friday morning.

The one thing that is important to underline with respect to Bill C-14 is the cooperation that all parties showed in passing this important legislation. When the legislation was introduced, the Minister of Justice said that the opposition parties would obstruct and delay the bill and that the government was very much concerned that it will become very complicated to get it through the House of Commons.

However, we saw the exact opposite in this place. When an issue of public security, as important as the fight against organized crime, is on the floor of the House of Commons, all parties showed a great deal of willingness to pass the legislation. The legislation, in our view, was a responsible and balanced measure to deal with the very difficult circumstance of gun violence in an organized crime context and the protection of peace officers and those in the judicial system.

I will remind the House that the legislation does four things. It would create sentencing provisions so that every murder committed in connection with a criminal organization is considered first degree murder regardless of whether there was premeditation. It would create a drive-by shooting offence, the discharge of a firearm with recklessness, and would impose a four-year mandatory prison sentence on someone convicted under that offence. It would create a mandatory minimum sentence with respect to assaulting a peace officer, an aggravated assault or an assault with a weapon of a peace officer or those who work in the judicial system. It also would extend the duration of recognizance for up to two years for a person who has previously been convicted of a gang related offence.

Those are four important measures. In our view, the legislation seeks to reassure the public and to send a clear message that Parliament will be very diligent with respect to the fight against organized crime.

However, what the legislation does not do is deal with the difficult problem of prevention, of giving the police the tools they need to pursue the gang members and those who are involved in organized crime. The government likes to focus on the sentencing provisions. Every time government members have a chance, they talk about how they have toughened up sentences, increased penalties and imposed mandatory minimums.

We do not disagree that that is part of the solution. As long as they are balanced and appropriate, they can be part of a comprehensive approach to deal with the very difficult problem of organized crime. However, it is not the final answer to that difficult problem when police are telling us that they desperately need to modernize the investigative techniques at their disposal and that they need lawful access legislation that allows them, in a 21st century way, with, obviously, the provision of a court order, to have electronic surveillance on communications by different gang members.

In the old days, when the police could get a wiretap order from a judge and listen to someone's home telephone attached to the wall in the kitchen, those days are over. The communication capacities of these organized criminal gangs are such that the investigative techniques that the police officers require to investigate and then prosecute these criminals need modernization.

One of the challenges in prosecuting an organized crime member, particularly with respect to a very violent crime or a murder, is often the reluctance of witnesses to come forward. There can be a terrible situation where people in broad daylight in a residential area or in a shopping centre will witness either a violent crime or a shooting and then when the police do an investigation and try to have witnesses give statements and ultimately testify once charges are laid, it becomes very difficult to get these people to testify because of the fear of reprisals.

Therefore, part of an investigation requires the ability to access electronic surveillance and exchanges of emails on blackberries or direct transmissions from one blackberry device to another. Our laws have not kept up with those communication instruments.

When the Attorney General of British Columbia came to Ottawa some months ago, one of the things he asked Parliament to move quickly on was modernizing investigative techniques and lawful access. He also asked Parliament to deal with the problem of the two for one remand credit. I am very happy that Bill C-25 was introduced, which the Liberal Party will be supporting as well, once again to limit the extra credit given for remand time while awaiting a trial.

In our view, this legislation represents part of the solution. However, the government needs to spend more time focusing on what it can do to prevent crime and not simply punish somebody who is convicted once there is already a victim. The tragedy with crimes committed in accordance with Bill C-14 is that hey will be among the most violent and dangerous crimes because they are associated with criminal gangs. Once a charge is laid under these new provisions, a tragedy, without doubt, has taken place.

We will see victims of these organized criminal gangs on television and in our communities. At that point, it is important for those convicted of these crimes to face stiff penalties. However, we think it is equally important to ask those communities what tools, what law enforcement agencies, what social programs, what educational institutions and what addiction programs they need from us to prevent people being victims, which, ultimately, will make communities much safer.

As I mentioned, the Liberal Party supported this bill.

We plan on continuing to work with the other political parties in this Parliament when balanced and responsible measures to improve public safety throughout the country are introduced. But we will also insist at all times that there be a balance between imposing harsh penalties for the most serious criminal offences and providing provincial and municipal authorities and police forces with the tools they need to prevent crime.

We must help them to take action before citizens become victims or unfortunate situations arise such as those we have seen in major Canadian cities in recent months.

Opposition Motion—Gun Control

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I am rising in this House, on behalf of the Liberal caucus, to support the motion tabled today by the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. That member has a long and distinguished career in the area of public safety. He is one of those people here who really knows what must be done to improve public safety and, for example, to fight organized crime, as he did for so many years during his tenure at the Quebec National Assembly. Today, I salute him and I am telling him that the Liberal caucus will support his motion.

I also want to stress the important work done by many Canadians on the very complex issue of gun control. For example, Suzanne Laplante-Edwards, who is the mother of one of the victims of the tragedy at the École Polytechnique, has done a lot to promote gun control. She is in Ottawa today to remind parliamentarians of the importance of supporting measures that will help control guns and increase public safety, and also to remind us of past tragedies that show the importance of continuing to fight to improve all these measures, which are so critical to ensure public safety. Gun control and the gun registry are undoubtedly two initiatives that help us achieve these goals.

I want to be very clear. Liberals will be supporting this motion tabled by our colleague for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. We believe gun control and the firearms registry are essential elements in the effort to improve public safety across Canada. However, Liberals also recognize that there are persons across the country and in rural communities such as the ones I represent who legitimately use firearms, non-prohibited weapons, for sporting purposes, hunting and target practice.

We recognize and respect that some Canadians have a legitimate need for firearms, but they must also recognize that the legitimate need to protect public safety and to follow the advice of Canada's front-line police officers and police chiefs across the country requires that all firearms need to be part of an effective firearms registry that serves as an essential element of the police officers' work to protect public safety.

In a question a few moments ago, I think my colleague for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine reminded the House of a very important document that was sent to our leader by the Canadian Police Association, a group that represents 57,000 front-line police officers. The elected president of this association wrote to the leader of the Liberal Party on April 7 and asked the Liberal Party to continue to support the firearms registry. He asked members of our party and members of Parliament in other parties to oppose Bill S-5, currently sitting in the Senate, and to oppose Bill C-301, a very irresponsible private member's bill that sits on the order paper of the House.

I want to quote from the letter from the Canadian Police Association, where the elected president said:

It would be irresponsible to suspend or abandon any element of [Canada's firearms program]

In 2008, police services used the firearms registry, on average, 9,400 times a day. They consulted the firearms registry over 3.4 million times last year alone. In that year, 2008, they conducted an inquiry of the firearms registry on over 2 million individuals and did over 900,000 address checks at the firearms registry.

Another organization that in our view is eminently qualified, more so than government members of Parliament, to speak on the issue of public safety is the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. In a letter sent to our leader on March 9, they also said they were asking members of Parliament to oppose Bill C-301 and to maintain the registration of all firearms.

That is precisely the thrust of the motion tabled today in this House. It is important to maintain the integrity of the gun registry and to end the amnesty which, in our opinion, has watered down the integrity of the registry, something which certainly does not help public safety.

The government across the way claims to be interested in public safety. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you have often seen cabinet ministers and government members wanting to be photographed with police officers. These people make announcement on various bills, or on amendments to the Criminal Code. We often see police officers standing behind the minister announcing such changes to the Criminal Code.

It is obvious that Conservative members view the support of police officers as something symbolic, but also very important for their so-called improvements to the Criminal Code. However, when these same officers, through the duly elected officials representing their associations, ask them to put a stop to a policy which, in their opinion, is irresponsible and goes against the goal shared—I hope—by all members in this House, namely to improve public safety, government members do not agree with the people with whom they had their picture taken just weeks earlier.

There is no doubt, in our view, that extending the amnesty poses a threat to public safety. That is why we will oppose the idea of extending or renewing the amnesty.

If we think about the whole idea of an amnesty with respect to a Criminal Code provision, it is a rather bizarre way to make criminal law in the country. For a government to simply decide that it will suspend the application of a particular section of the Criminal Code or another criminal law is, to me, not a very courageous or legitimate way to make public law in Canada.

If the government had the courage to table a bill in this House that would do what so many government members in their speeches or in their questions and comments claim they want it to do, it knows very well that the bill would be defeated. What does the government do? It signs an order in council or a minister simply directs crown prosecutors that, for this or that reason, for a period of time they should not enforce the criminal legislation.

That is as irresponsible as deciding that the sections of the Criminal Code, for example, that apply to impaired driving would be suspended for two weeks around Christmas. It is the same sort of notion that the government can tell prosecutors or justice officials that we are going to provide an amnesty.

Earlier we heard members claiming that this was only so that firearms owners would come forward and voluntarily choose to register their firearms. If that were the original intention of the one year amnesty when it was announced almost three years ago, why was there a need to continually renew it? The reason the amnesty was renewed is because the Prime Minister has made it very clear that he does not support effective gun control in Canada and he wants to find a way to do what he cannot do legislatively in this House, which is to weaken the firearms registry that is so important for public safety.

The government's true agenda with respect to gun control and public safety is found in two measures. It is found in private member's Bill C-301. The government likes to say that it is a private member's bill but it is the first time I have seen the Prime Minister address a large gathering of persons in front of the media and urge members of Parliament to support a private member's bill, as the Prime Minister did in support of Bill C-301.

However, when the Prime Minister's office realized that it was an irresponsible and appalling piece of legislation, which, for example, as my colleagues have identified, would allow people to transport automatic weapons such as machine guns through neighbourhoods on their way to a target range, it then said that the government would not support the bill on the same day the Prime Minister publicly called upon members of Parliament to vote for it. However, as a way to sort of recoup the embarrassment, the government then presented in the other place Bill S-5.

It is pretty transparent why the government did that. It is because it does not have the courage to move legislation in this House of Commons that would weaken public safety and compromise the safety of police officers and Canadians by weakening gun control measures across the country.

The government likes to use this issue to try to drive a wedge between rural and urban Canada and has done so on many occasions.

I have been fortunate enough to be elected four times in a rural riding in New Brunswick. The largest town in my riding is probably Sackville, which has about 5,000 people. The rest of my riding consists of small towns or unincorporated areas that do not have a municipal government.

So I have been elected four times in a rural riding and I have visited hunting and fishing clubs there. Where I live, in the Grande-Digue area of New Brunswick, the local hunting and fishing club organizes a community lunch once a month on Sunday morning. I have gone to it many times.

It is not true that our position in favour of registering all firearms means we are against the legitimate use of hunting rifles in parts of the country where hunting is a common sport.

The Prime Minister tries to use this issue to divide people. I can assure the House that the Liberal Party fully respects the legitimate use of firearms, whether for sport or by people who simply collect guns. We also value the lives of the people who are responsible for ensuring the safety of Canadians all across the country, including in rural areas, and who want us to keep the firearms registry.

The idea that rural areas are safe from threats to public safety and tragedies involving guns is also not realistic. Just a few months ago in the town in Shediac, where I have my riding office, someone died as a result of a crime. Three people entered a house and killed a young man with a hunting rifle. Criminal charges were laid a few weeks ago and the case is now before the New Brunswick courts.

Public safety definitely matters to people in the town of Shediac, New Brunswick, on the banks of the Northumberland Strait, just as it interests people in such big Canadian cities as Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg or Montreal. We are all affected by measures to improve public safety, but it is in the interests of us all to preserve a balance between the legitimate use of firearms and the need to have a full and complete registry that is used more than 9,400 times a day by Canadian police officers who need to consult the registry for their own protection and to conduct criminal investigations.

The Liberals are interested and will always be interested in ways to improve the registration process for firearms. We acknowledge that over a number of years there have been some improvements but there can continue to be ways to make registration easier and simpler for those who legitimately have firearms that are not prohibited weapons for legitimate purposes.

To have an interest in seeing how we can improve the firearms registry for those who apply to have firearms registered is as legitimate as the desire to want to preserve the integrity of the firearms registry and not allow an amnesty, which is an irresponsible back door measure to do what the government does not have the courage to do legislatively, which is weaken the firearms registry across the country.

We spend a lot of time in the House talking about public safety and about ways improve criminal legislation. We have seen a number of examples where Liberals have worked with other parties in the House and the government to make amendments to the Criminal Code that will improve public safety.

Yesterday, the House passed Bill C-25 at second reading and it will now go before the justice committee. That was important because it would reduce the two for one remand credit which will improve public confidence in the justice system. We also supported Bills C-14 and C-15. Yesterday evening, I, along with my colleague who chairs the justice committee and committee members, passed Bill C-14 without amendment and it will be referred back to the House. That bill attacks some of the difficult problems of organized crime. It would the police increased ability to lay criminal charges to deal with some of the tragedies in some of the difficult situations that we have seen in places like Vancouver.

On this side of the House, the Liberals are very interested in working in ways that are responsible, balanced and recognize the importance of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms but we also recognize that the Criminal Code needs to be modernized and strengthened and to give police officers and prosecutors the tools they need to preserve and improve public safety.

One of those tools is a national system of gun control. Canadians across the country support the idea that there should be effective gun control measures in the country. Much to the chagrin of Conservative members, that includes, in the opinion of police officers and police chiefs, the registration of all firearms in Canada as an essential tool in the pursuit of improved public safety.

Our hon. colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin was right to introduce this motion and we intend to support it.

We will be supporting this motion when it comes before the House for a vote because we will not play the games that the Conservative Party wants to play in pretending that this is a great divide between rural and urban Canada.

I stand before the House, as a member elected in a rural riding, as living proof that the people in my riding support effective gun control measures and understand that when the police officers across the country say to us that this is one of many tools they need to improve public safety, we should be careful before acting in an irresponsible way that would diminish and reduce something that I think we all share as a desire to have safer communities, safer homes and safer streets all across the country.

Criminal Code

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to speak during the second reading of Bill C-25 which proposes to limit the credit granted by the courts to offenders for time spent in custody. The honour is made even greater for me today by the fact that during the 39th Parliament I introduced a private member's bill which, like Bill C-25, sought to replace the double time served sentencing provisions with a more just and appropriate sentence. I want to thank the minister for taking into account my private member's bill when he introduced Bill C-25 in the 40th Parliament.

Before discussing the various elements of this bill, I would like to briefly describe the implications of the credit granted for time spent in custody. Pre-sentencing custody occurs when it is necessary to ensure the appearance of the accused. In other cases, custody before and during the trial is necessary to protect the public when it is highly likely that the accused will reoffend or obstruct the administration of justice in the event that he or she is set free for that period of time. The severity of the offence may also justify the need to keep the accused in custody.

The Criminal Code establishes that time spent in custody may be taken into consideration during sentencing, but does not provide for any ratio to be applied. The courts, however, have traditionally applied a 2:1 ratio, that is, a credit of two days for each one day spent in custody. In other words, an accused who has spent six months in custody following an offence for which a fair prison sentence would be two and one-half years would only serve a year and a half based on the 2:1 ratio being applied.

Instead of being incarcerated in a federal penitentiary for a sentence of more than two years, the offender would now actually serve the sentence in a provincial prison.

The courts justify this ratio by citing the lack of programs in correctional facilities and the fact that pre-sentencing custody is not taken into account when considering eligibility for parole once the sentence has been handed down. That is why the period spent in custody is often referred to simply as down time. However, this ratio is not fixed at 2:1. In some cases it has become 3:1, where custody conditions were especially difficult, either because a correctional institution was overpopulated or because the sanitary conditions were poor. However, it is obviously our hope that such a ratio is rarely applied.

Sometimes the ratio applied is less than 2:1, where the offender is unlikely to be granted early parole because of his or her criminal record or where the offender was placed in preventive custody due to a bail violation. However, there is no uniformity or consistency in the importance attached to these factors.

In the last decade the proportion of persons in pre-sentencing custody has actually exceeded the number of adults in post-sentencing custody in the provinces and territories. There are more folks in custody who are awaiting trial than there are prisoners who have been convicted or are in jail. Overall the number of persons in pre-sentencing custody account for approximately 60% of the number of persons admitted to provincial and territorial institutions.

As a result, the provincial and territorial governments have voiced their concerns regarding the repercussions on the growth of the population in pre-sentencing custody and have requested that the 2:1 ratio be limited. Among the factors that have contributed to this increase is the fact that the court records are now much more complex, take much more time to process and result in a longer period spent in pre-sentencing custody.

For example, in 1994-95 some 34% of accused in custody were held for more than a week. A mere 10 years later this proportion has risen from 35% to 45%. The proposal contained in this bill will help reduce court caseloads thereby accelerating the processing of records.

Also, there have been reports that the increase in the population in custody is due to the choice of the accused to extend the period spent in custody so as to have a shorter sentence once the 2:1 ratio is applied after conviction. This bill is aimed at discouraging and eliminating this behaviour.

The credit of two days for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody increases court caseloads and allows certain accused to obtain a lighter sentence. This common practice creates a public perception that the sentences imposed simply do not reflect the severity of the crime, especially when the ratio applied for the pre-sentence period is unknown.

That is why this bill proposes the application of a 1:1 ratio in all cases with the possibility, if circumstances justify, of granting up to one and one-half days for each day spent in custody. In addition, it proposes to limit the ratio to 1:1 for persons in pre-sentencing custody on the basis of their criminal record or because they have violated their bail conditions.

This bill proposes that the courts clearly indicate the credit for the time spent in custody as well as the sentence imposed. It also requires that the courts give reasons for their decision for any credit granted for time spent in custody. This will make it possible to better evaluate the ratio used and how often a credit is given for time spent in custody. Even a one to one credit will require the courts to explain the decision and why the grant was given for that additional credit.

These measures will allow for greater uniformity and certainty, and increase public confidence in the administration of our justice system.

This bill will result in an increase in the number of offenders who previously received a sentence under provincial jurisdiction, two years less a day, after taking into account the credit for the period spent in custody, and who will now receive a sentence under federal jurisdiction of two years or more. In addition, offenders under federal jurisdiction will spend more time in federal detention facilities. This increase will also allow for improved rehabilitation among offenders since they can benefit from correctional programs for a longer period.

For these reasons, I encourage my parliamentary colleagues to give their unanimous support to this bill so as to accelerate its passage as quickly as possible.

Enhanced credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody is seen as one of the several factors that have contributed to considerable increases in remand populations over the past several years. In other words, the longer an individual who has been charged and is awaiting his or her trial, the more the individual can have his or her case remanded, the bigger the benefit the individual receives for the time he or she has spent in pre-sentencing custody. That is not what this was meant for. It was not the intent to assist criminals who are convicted of crimes to seek easier passage of their incarceration time.

At the end of the day, this bill makes sense. It enhances and augments what the minister has described as a bill that needs speedy course through this House and through committee.

The constituents who live in my riding of St. Catharines have long cried out for changes to the legislation, based on a number of court cases in the Niagara area where convicted criminals have benefited from two or three to one additional credits for the days they have spent in pre-sentencing custody. I submit that the constituents of more than just one riding in this country believe this is the right legislation to pass. It should have happened sooner, but it is happening today because this government is ready to move on this justice legislation.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

Truth in Sentencing Act

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines.

It is a privilege for me to speak to Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody).

As members may know, my riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale has been directly affected by the shootings and gang war that has erupted in the Lower Mainland. My constituents are extremely concerned about the ongoing violence and complete disregard gang members have in our community. As the police have clearly indicated, much of this gang warfare is directly related to the drug trade. The guns being used are often smuggled across the border and purchased with the profits from the drug trade, or traded for drugs. Ensuring truth in sentencing, as Bill C-25 would help do, is an important step in ending British Columbia's gang war.

Every member of Parliament brings some experience in other professions and trades to his or her job here. Before I was elected, I served as an attorney for the B.C. legal services. I saw firsthand the impact drugs are having on our young people. I saw firsthand how many young people would turn to a life of crime to feed their drug habits and addictions. Drugs are often the gateway to crime for many career criminals. That is why I feel so strongly that we need to crack down on those who attempt to profit at the expense of our young people. Ensuring that drug pushers and gangsters serve a sentence that matches the seriousness of their crime is an important part of combatting the drug trade.

Upon taking office, our government committed itself to tackling crime and making our streets safer. Our commitment included preventing courts from giving extra credit for pretrial custody for persons denied bail because of their criminal record or for having violated bail.

Under the current system, courts typically take into account certain factors, such as overcrowding in remand centres, lack of rehabilitative programs commonly available in sentence custody, and the fact that time spent in remand does not count toward parole eligibility. This has resulted in courts traditionally awarding a two-for-one credit for time served in pretrial custody.

Now, on rare occasions, the credit awarded has been as high as three for one, especially where the conditions of detention were poor, for example, because of extreme crowding. Although also rare, credit has sometimes been less than two for one where offenders were unlikely to obtain early parole because of their criminal record or because of time spent in remand as a result of a breach of bail conditions.

The general practice of awarding generous credit for time spent in pre-sentencing has resulted in correctional authorities straining to cope with the growing number of people who are held in remand. In many cases, the population in remand centres now exceeds the population found in sentence custody in Canada's provincial and territorial jails.

Provincial attorneys general and correctional ministers have expressed concerns about the growing number of people being held in custody prior to sentencing. They strongly support limiting credit for time served as a way to help reduce the growing size of their remand population. Concerns have also been expressed that this practice has been abused by some accused who delay their trials and sentencing to earn double credit for the time spent in pretrial custody, thereby reducing their sentence.

Canadians have told us loud and clear that they would like to see more truth in sentencing.

I want to refer to a case that happened just last month in Toronto. A man convicted of manslaughter in the death of a nearly one-year-old baby found with 38 wounds was sentenced to six and a half years in prison. However, given that he has already served three years in pretrial detention since he was arrested for this killing, the two-for-one credit will guarantee that he is out on the streets within six months of his conviction.

One way of achieving truth in sentencing is to bring the practice of giving double time credit for pretrial custody to an end.

We are listening to the Canadian public in proposing this legislation. It would provide the courts with greater guidance in sentencing by limiting the amount of credit that courts may grant to convicted criminals for the time they served in custody prior to their sentencing. Bill C-25 would limit the credit ratio to two for one in all cases. However, where circumstances justify it, courts would be able to award a credit of up to one and a half days for every day spent in pre-sentencing custody. In such cases, the court would be required to provide an explanation for those circumstances. These circumstances are not defined in the bill. This is so the courts would have the discretion to consider on a case-by-case basis whether the credit to be awarded for the time spent in pre-sentencing custody should be more than one for one.

For example, we would expect a credit ratio of up to 1.5 to one would be considered where the conditions of detention and remand are extremely poor, or there is a complete absence of programming, or when the trial is unduly delayed by factors not attributable to the accused. However, where accused are remanded for having violated bail or because of their criminal record, the credit would be limited to one day for every day spent in pre-sentencing custody no matter what the remand conditions are.

As a result of this initiative, more offenders would now have a federal sentence of two years or more, and an increased number of offenders who would likely have been sentenced to a federal penitentiary would be spending longer time in federal custody. From a rehabilitation perspective, this time in the federal system would present the opportunity for longer term programming that may have a positive impact on the offender.

Bill C-25 also proposes to require courts to note the sentence that would have been imposed without the credit, the amount of credit awarded and the actual sentence imposed. This requirement would result in greater transparency and consistency and would improve public confidence in the administration of justice.

The proposed legislation is part of a series of criminal justice bills that has been introduced since we took office to help ensure the safety of Canadians. To make Canada safer, we have enacted legislation to get violent and dangerous criminals off our streets. We have cracked down on sexual predators, dangerous offenders and those who use guns to commit crimes. We have given the police more tools and resources to combat crime and to deal with those who drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

In the current session we have introduced Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (organized crime and protection of justice system participants), which will provide law enforcement officials and the justice system a better means to address organized crime related activities, in particular, gang members and drive-by shootings.

Bill C-15, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts, was introduced on February 27. It would provide for mandatory jail time for those who produce and sell illegal drugs. The reforms would, however, allow a drug treatment court to suspend a sentence while an addicted accused took an approved treatment program.

We have also introduced legislation in Bill S-4 to provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to protect Canadian families and businesses from identity theft.

We will continue to introduce legislation to strengthen the justice system. Bill C-25 is an important contribution to this objective.

I appreciate the support of our provincial and territorial partners for this legislative amendment to provide greater truth in sentencing. I can only hope that we can also count on the support of the opposition parties, who have so often stood in the way of any bill that would actually reflect truth in sentencing.

I note the Liberal member for Vancouver South, who has been a loud critic of this government on law and order issues, recently criticized our approach to the issue of sentencing. In the Vancouver Sun on March 26 he is quoted as saying:

If they were genuinely concerned about public safety, they would have actually gone through the system, including corrections and parole board, and attempted to deal with the issue of organized crime. I believe they have not done their job in that regard.

I have three things to say in response to the member, who is a lawyer and a former attorney general of British Columbia.

First, we have introduced four separate bills in the past two months that will help police and prosecutors to crack down on organized crime, and gang and gun war is being waged in the Lower Mainland right now. Will he and his party support those bills?

Second, since forming government in 2006, we have continually introduced legislation to better achieve truth in sentencing. His party opposed these bills in the House and in the Senate. It was not until the Prime Minister threatened an election that the Liberals finally agreed to allow this measure to pass. Why did his party oppose truth in sentencing for so long?

Finally, let us remember that the member for Vancouver South was elected in 2004 and appointed to cabinet. He said that he is concerned about organized crime. He said that he is serious about stopping gun and gang violence. Why was the legislation we are debating today not passed while he was still in power?

I would call on the member and all parties in Parliament to put aside the partisan rhetoric and join us in supporting this common sense legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as its base, Bill C-25 is an appropriate bill to deal with a problem and a perception of a problem in our sentencing process. From that vantage point, my party is inclined to support the bill but it is not without some significant trepidation.

It is important to understand what the bill would do. It would reduce the amount of credit that an individual, who has been in pretrial custody, been convicted and is now being sentenced, will receive. That credit would, in effect, be reduced. Members of the House should know that this reduction in credit would be much less significant than we have been led to believe by the Minister of Justice in his address and in some of the comments he made to the media. Even if we were to take a superficial look at the legislation, we would think there would be a substantial reduction in that credit. I must disabuse the House of that fact because that is not what will happen.

In terms of dealing with this, we need to appreciate the significance of the context. This issue of granting pretrial custody credits grew out of subsection 719(3), which was referred to by some of my other colleagues, that gave our judges the discretion to take into account pretrial custody.

What then evolved was a process that has become entrenched, almost absolutely, over the last five to ten years. What happens now is that because of the conditions in our pretrial custody settings, the judges across the land, both at the provincial court level and at the superior court level, have been practically automatically granting two for one credits.

I want to read from an op-ed piece that was written by a Toronto lawyer in the Globe and Mail on April 1. I will not use the individual's full name but he talks about a man named Pavel who was in pretrial custody. He stated:

Pavel...slept on the floor next to the toilet. He was smaller than his cellmates, and most nights he didn't dare challenge them for one of the two bunks. He spent 20 hours a day locked with two other men in a 12-by-8-foot 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.

This, by the way, was not in the 1800s. This was in 2002 in a detention centre in metropolitan Toronto, the largest city in this country and, arguably, in that period of time, certainly the wealthiest city in the wealthiest province in this country. He was in pretrial custody under those circumstances. He did get two for one when he was ultimately sentenced.

That is the kind of factual situation that led our judges across the board, right across the country, including at our appeal court levels, all the way up to the Supreme Court, to say that faced with those circumstances in our provincial jails and in our remand centres across the country we must give that kind of credit.

What has been happening in more recent years is that in a number of cases credit was given on a three to one basis because the situation in the custodial setting was so bad.

This bill would address a problem. There is no question that I think the average Canadian citizen would ask why we give credit. If a person is in custody, fine, we will give him credit for the one on one, but why any more?

I do not believe the average Canadian citizen understands the nature and quality of the pretrial jail settings in this country. I think most Canadians would be quite upset but they do not hear about it and they do not see it. Of course we all recognize, especially with individuals who have committed violent crimes, that there is no particular sympathy for them.

The other problem the judiciary has with the system is that in a number of sections of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms it talks about the way people who are charged with crimes are to be handled, especially before they are convicted. Everyone has a fundamental right to the presumption of innocence and section 12 of the charter specifically prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.

The judges confronted with the charter and the fundamental rights that we have all accepted, adopted and value have looked at that and want to know how to deal with it. In many cases, it is cruel and unusual punishment. They want to know how to keep the courts and the criminal justice system in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Their response, almost universally, has been to say that they need to give convicted criminals extra credit. They need to recognize what they were put through in the pretrial setting. This has grown up. It is an absolute sentencing principle and policy that has been followed for a good number of years now.

I want to be very clear on why we would be supportive of this bill even though we have not made a final decision on it. The average Canadian citizen does not understand it and we know how crucial it is for the citizenry to have an appropriate level of respect for our criminal justice system. If we lose that respect, whether it is for the judiciary, the prosecutors, the bar or the police, we would end up with a system that could lead to chaos and, in some cases, anarchy. We cannot take that chance so we must be very careful in how we handle this. There are alternatives.

I must say that I was somewhat concerned and maybe even a bit taken aback by the minister's speech this afternoon when he talked about the work that he has been doing with the provincial levels of government to deal with the level of remands and the overcrowding in our system. The truth is that we have done hardly anything at the federal level to assist the provinces. We need more judges, court rooms, prosecutors, police and greater funding for legal aid so the defence bar is able to provide adequate defence within the confines of the charter. If we as a federal government were engaged actively in assisting the provinces, this bill probably would not be necessary because we would not have the practice.

The Winnipeg Free Press had an interesting editorial on April 1 after this bill was tabled in the House. It made two solid points. It said that when we are passing as many criminal laws as we are, it does not necessarily mean that we will reduce the crime rate. All it means is that we will have more criminal charges that our courts have to deal with. It went on to say that the biggest challenge, however, would be to make the court system work efficiently enough that no lawyer could claim that a client should get additional credit for time served before sentencing. That is the key.

I want to make one other point that was made about Manitoba, and this is true across the country. In Manitoba, almost 70% of all the people in custody are in pretrial custody. They have not been convicted of anything but in many cases are languishing in jail. The crucial point was that we need to speed up the court system.

With all due respect to attorneys general and solicitors general across the country, we hear regularly from them that the slowdowns are because of the accused person and his or her lawyers. One of my caucus colleagues passed a letter to me from a retired judge who said that was an insult to the intelligence of anybody who works in the criminal justice system. The defence bar does not control the agenda. Prosecutors do not control the agenda. The judges control the agenda in their courtrooms and they do not allow for meaningless adjournments or extension of trials.

The reality is that our prosecutors are way overworked. They have file numbers that are totally unrealistic in terms of being able to prosecute offenders in an efficient manner. They are required by our Constitution and our law to provide disclosure but they do not have enough resources within their departments or from the police to be able to give that disclosure. They end up in court every two weeks and an accused is brought forward even though disclosure has not been completed. An adjournment is called on consent of the prosecutor and the defence and acceded to by the judge because the judge has no choice. That is why we have a backlog.

Unless we put those resources in the bill, the bill would have little effect on reducing the remands. This fact must be recognized by the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Justice, as well as solicitors general and attorneys general across the country.

I want to make another point about what is going to happen here.

I believe the minister is being overly optimistic. In Bill C-25, the rule would be one for one credit but clause (3.1) provides that if the circumstances justify it, it can go to one and a half to one.

My colleague from the Bloc is not reading the bill properly. I think he said that this would be in exceptional circumstances. That would then limit it quite dramatically. This clause simply says that the judge needs to have evidence in front of him or her that will justify going to one and a half credits instead of just maintaining it at one. Members may remember my earlier comments when I said that it is automatic now. Very little evidence is given. It is automatic now that the offender gets two for one credit. It is the exceptional case where any significant amount of evidence is put in.

If the bill goes through with this wording, the sentencing part of the trial process will become quite lengthy because people from the custodial setting, prison guards, staff people, et cetera, will be called as witnesses. The accused himself may go on the stand and tell what happened to him and why he is entitled to one and a half as opposed to just one credit.

The sentencing process would get much longer than it currently is, which means that our backlog would get worse. As opposed to that not being much of an issue at all, maybe a minute or two in a sentencing process, the judge simply states that this is a case where two to one should be granted, nobody objects and they go on to what other representations will be made on sentencing.

If this bill passes, it will now take half an hour, an hour or maybe several hours in every sentencing because the judge will need to hear evidence in order to explain why he or she is giving the one and a half credit. Our sentencing process will get much longer and remands will get much longer.

As opposed to some proposals, I have had discussions with some solicitors general across the country. With respect to the two-to-one, to deal with our criminal justice system, and I know we do a little of it and I will give the minister credit for that, we should be specifically and exclusively targeting repeat offenders. The argument that is made in those conditions of a negative impact on a first offender is much more telling to a judge than if that person is a repeat offender. If they are convicted as repeat offenders, we should be able to argue that they will not get more than one-for-one. The same applies if they are convicted of being part of an organized crime gang.

We could set that out and I believe it would buffer us from the charter challenge, which will come in spite of what we heard from the minister. There will definitely be a charter challenge on this on the basis of section 12. This would buffer us quite sufficiently from that if we targeted just those two areas. Those are the ones we want to go after. Those cases are the ones that are causing the disrespect, those people who have been through the system a number of times and still get a two-to-one credit because it is automatic. They would no longer get the credit if they were convicted repeatedly. We could get away with that under the charter.

I am not at all confident that the bill will survive a charter challenge when we go back to the example l gave at the start of my comments today. A case like that coming before a judge will look at sections 12 and 719 and Bill C-25. It will be considered cruel and unusual punishment and will not be bound by the one and a half. It will be struck down at least in part on a number of files. Again, that would cause a huge fight in our court system and would probably go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. For those kinds of situations in our jails, ultimately the bill will not survive as it is presently constituted.

I look forward to the bill going to committee, given the support it has from the other parties. At committee we may be able to rectify some of the problems in the bill and make it more meaningful. I hope also in the course of the hearings maybe more evidence will come forward as to where the real problems are around the cases we have in remand, which in many cases target those who we really do not want to target. If we continue with the existing system, it has the advantage for the repeat offender and a major disadvantage for the first-time offender. They are the people who, if we can catch them on the first time, we know we can reduce the rate of recidivism a great deal as opposed to the repeat offenders. We should targeting those people so we can speed up their trials and get them through the system. If there is going to be a guilty plea or a finding of guilt, let us get it done as quickly as we possibly can, but that means putting in more resources.

It may also mean some amendments to our evidence act. We may be able to reduce the amount of disclosure we have to give to keep in compliance with the charter.

There are other things that could be done which would be meaningful, useful, would be practical common sense solutions to our remand problems. I was going to read a quote from Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen about the government's role in crime bills, but my time is running out. The Conservatives always look for the hot button they can push as opposed to looking for good, practical solutions. The bill unfortunately is another example of that.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Bloc Québécois is going to be supporting this bill. I think it is a great bill.

I have two federal institutions in my riding, Stony Mountain Penitentiary and Rockwood Institution. They have been telling me that it is incredibly difficult to deal with inmates who come out of remand after sitting there for so long and getting two to one credit, because they do not have the opportunity, by the time these inmates get to the federal institution, to provide the much needed programming and counselling that they require.

If we are going to actually return convicts to society and have them become a productive part of society, they have to have the opportunity to participate in programming and be able to get education, to go through 12-step programs to get over substance abuse problems, and to deal with things such as anger management and maybe some mental health issues as well.

Therefore, it is important that they get as quickly as possible through the system and into the federal and provincial institutions that offer programming. That is why Bill C-25 is such a great move by the Minister of Justice in order to expedite the process, because we do have lawyers and others who have been playing games and making sure that people remain in remand as long as possible because of two to one sentencing. We have to allow those people to get through the system and into the federal institutions where they can get the programming they so greatly need.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-25. Earlier, I heard the minister express concern, nervousness and impatience. I felt like suggesting that he sign up for an anger management program, but I held back.

The Bloc Québécois supports this bill. In 2007, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked me to chair a working group. I worked with the members for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Ahuntsic to propose measures to restore our fellow citizens' confidence in the justice system without turning to easy measures, such as mandatory minimum sentences or tougher sentences.

The measures the committee proposed to the leader of the Bloc Québécois were part of our election platform. They included subsection 719(3), which gives judges some discretion to offer “pre-sentence credit”. However, in our system, “pre-sentence credit” has become more or less automatic.

Let us start at the beginning. Part XXIII of the Criminal Code sets out how judges are to administer justice when it comes to sentencing. It is based on principles of deterrence, denunciation and proportionality. Farther on, when it comes to “pre-sentence credit”, the Code says that it is up to the judge, who can take into account pre-trial detention when sentencing. Why is that in the Criminal Code? At the time, John Turner—I am not sure whether this brings up good memories or bad ones—was the Minister of Justice and soon-to-be leader of the Liberal Party. He was a good friend of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, even though, as I understand it, they crossed swords from time to time in the Liberal Party's history on particular issues.

The fact is that the Minister of Justice at the time, John Turner, proposed an amendment to the Criminal Code that would allow a judge to take pre-trial custody into account. In our justice system, pre-trial custody is the exception, not the rule. Under subsection 515.(10) of the Criminal Code, when individuals are charged with gangsterism, when they have committed terrorism offences, when there is reason to believe they will not attend their trial or when they have not complied with the conditions of their release on bail, a judge can order that they be held pending sentencing. Obviously, this is an exceptional measure. We need to remember that in our system, individuals are generally released pending sentencing.

As a result, the courts have come to determine that individuals in preventive custody are penalized in a sense, as they are not eligible for parole or rehabilitation and education programs because the conditions under which they are held are stricter than in the case of post-sentencing custody.

It was really the Supreme Court of Canada that determined the ratio to use for individuals in preventive custody. Looking at subsection 719(3) of the Criminal Code, we can see that no ratio is specified. The ratio came about as a result of what is known as case law. Judges determined a ratio, and under the rule of stare decisis, that ratio gradually came to apply in trial courts, appeal courts and, of course, the Supreme Court.

I will read what Justice Laskin of the Ontario Court of Appeal said in the Rezaie decision, when the issue of preventive custody was examined for the first time:

...provincial appellate courts have rejected a mathematical formula for crediting pre-trial custody, instead insisting that the amount of time to be credited should be determined on a case by case basis.

What Justice Laskin is describing is the principle of judicial discretion. As each case is unique and must be examined on its own merits, judges must use their judgment, and because of the knowledge they have of the case, they are in the best position to determine the credit for preventive custody or the sentence at trial.

Justice Laskin continues:

Although a fixed multiplier may be unwise, absent justification, sentencing judges should give some credit for time spent in custody before trial—

This principle, stated by a court of appeal, was reiterated in 2000 by Justice Arbour, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The current President of the Treasury Board, then the Minister of Justice, had made rather gratuitous and snide comments about her. The opposition parties did not hesitate to condemn his very harsh words.

In 2000, when Justice Arbour sat on the Supreme Court of Canada, she reviewed the Wust decision. As we know, the Liberal minister at the time, Anne McLellan—I believe she was the only Liberal MP from Alberta who retained office for a number of terms—introduced Bill C-68. It may have been Allan Rock. I could be mistaken.

Mandatory minimum sentences were imposed for offences committed with firearms. The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the decision. In the case of mandatory minimum sentences, can a credit be given that will result in the offender serving a sentence that is less than the mandatory minimum set out in the Criminal Code? Justice Arbour handed down a ruling establishing a ratio for crediting pre-sentence custody.

I will read paragraph 45 of Justice Arbour's 2000 decision:

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 reflects also the fact that none of the remission mechanisms contained in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act apply to that period of detention.

The criminal code makes no ratio provision in subsection 719.(3) for pre-sentence custody. According to the code, the court may take it into account. Based on case law, the Supreme Court established a ratio used by the courts of justice. It is true that the practice has appeared exaggerated. Many of our fellow citizens consider it unfounded and special treatment. I myself have received representations on the matter.

The rule is as follows. An individual is released prior to trial, except if the individual is accused of being a gangster or a terrorist, or has failed to meet set conditions or if the judge believes he will not appear for trial. Some people do not understand why people whose names appear among those of the most hardened criminals and are not released while awaiting their trial are being given a two to one credit for every day spent in remand. In my opinion, the questioning is warranted.

In 2007, the Bloc Québécois, in its usual wisdom, called on the government to pass a measure to correct the situation, which, once again, for many, was unjustifiable, appeared to be special treatment and amounts, in the end, to a practice contrary to the administration of justice.

I sent a text to the press on November 22 following the decision by the Quebec court, criminal division. Members will recall that the Colisée operation led to the imprisonment of mafia leaders. The trial of those arrested in 2006 was held in 2008. As an example of the exaggerated nature of this measure, we need only remember that the head of the Quebec mafia, Nicolo Rizzuto, was charged with gangsterism and possession of proceeds of crime. He was sentenced in 2008, but had been arrested in 2006. He is one of the most hardened criminals and heads a criminal organization funded by extortion, proceeds of crime and gangsterism. The mafia is obviously widespread, very much present, very dangerous and very organized. The Supreme Court ruling was handed down in 2000. This mafia head was sentenced to four years in prison. He was arrested in 2006 and served two years' remand. With the rule being two days of sentence reduction for every day served, he was freed without serving the four-year prison sentence.

The members should ask themselves whether they want the justice system to work in such a way that, because of a rule handed down by the Supreme Court, leaders of criminal organizations like the mafia receive early releases and even a godfather, the most influential person in the mafia, does not have to serve his full four years in prison.

Members will agree that four years in prison is hardly too much for someone in a position like Nicolo Rizzuto's. This is the situation we want to correct. Does that mean suspensions for pre-trial custody should be eliminated? Absolutely not. We acknowledge that when people have been arrested and are in pre-trial custody, they have not been found guilty. The presumption of innocence still applies. We acknowledge that life in these detention centres is tough and the conditions are obviously terrible. We know that if the government ever decided to eliminate this completely, it would go before the Supreme Court and section 12 on cruel and unusual punishment and treatment would be invoked.

So this bill does not abolish the rule. Judges will still have discretion. We want to state, though, as legislators, that the general rule to apply in cases of pre-trial custody is the ratio of one for one. For every day spent in pre-trial custody, one day is subtracted from the sentence to be served. There will be exceptions, of course, and the Minister of Justice pointed this out. However, when exceptions are made—when sentences are reduced by a ratio of a day and a half—they must be justified on the record, in the judgment, and the judge must say why he or she made use of this discretionary power. This will provide some guidance for those studying the case law in the future. There will not be any speculation. Judges will have to explain themselves.

Another provision of the bill concerns sentence credits that cannot exceed the one for one rule when the accused is kept in preventive custody because of his criminal record or failure to comply with bail conditions. Under no circumstances can sentence credits exceed one day in cases involving repeat offenders. We think that this is a well balanced bill and that the these are the instructions members of this House should be giving.

The Bloc Québécois has called for these measures since 2007. In historical terms, it is fair and right to recognize that the Bloc fathered these measures with the report I submitted to the leader of the Bloc in 2007. We have ceaselessly questioned the minister to have these measures put in place.

Earlier, the Minister of Justice was saying that, in certain circumstances, especially with the help of their counsel, people use all sorts of delaying tactics to put off their trial date because time served in remand allows them to reduce their sentences. This is another anomaly that must be corrected. Subterfuge cannot be used to prevent justice from being served.

I say to the government that we will support this bill, with our usual common sense. We hope, however, to scrutinize it thoroughly in committee with all due diligence.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are here to debate Bill C-25. We are not here for a history lesson. Questions and comments should be specific to Bill C-25 and not these comments on the overall judicial—