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 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.

Truth in Sentencing Act

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed without debate to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I declare the motion carried, on division.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today--

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.

[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.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Moncton's analysis of the current system in corrections. He did not make much reference to the provincial level, but it is certainly the same at the provincial level. It is overcrowded. We certainly do not have anywhere near the resources to provide the necessary programming to ensure, as much as possible, a reduction in recidivism by inmates leaving the system once they have served their time.

I want to ask my colleague on the justice committee whether he does he not see a fundamental flaw in his argument in support of this bill. From a practical standpoint, the Liberal Party, and the Bloc as well, should not be supporting the bill at this time in light of the lack of resources in the system to deal with the inmates who are already there.

I think he agrees that inevitably the number of inmates is going to go up as a result of this bill and others that are in the works or that have already been passed. We have not seen the growth in the inmate population yet, but it is coming and to quite a significant degree. We know that the judges do not like giving more than equal time for pretrial custody, but they feel compelled to do it because of the standards in the pretrial custody.

Is it not irresponsible on the part of the Liberals and the Bloc to support this bill until such time as we have a very clear commitment and actual implementation of those additional resources by the government?

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

Madam Speaker, I tried to cover in my remarks that there is a very high duty on the government. Heavy is the head that wears the crown, Madam Speaker, and I guess by devolution you know that.

However, the real issue is whether we are going to avoid enacting legislation that is needed because the consequence of it might not be handled by some other department. It reminds me of having an illness in a medicare system that says, “We are not going to send that sick person for the treatment they need because we know the medical system is overcrowded and the hospitals are not doing a good job”.

It does not deny one's duty to treat the disease, or in this case to bring in the legislation that is needed.

I may have a different view than the hon. member about this legislation. I think judges are looking for clarity and that they are making decisions based on aspects of human rights as it may pertain to jail conditions. They should be putting those decisions in writing, and then we would have a body of decisions. I know they are only scripted decisions, such as a written endorsement on the back of a motion record cover. My friend is a lawyer and he knows what I am talking about. But it is a reason. Today we do not have that; it is in a dark hole. We do not know why judges per se are giving credit for remand custody.

If it is because of appalling conditions, then that provides a paper trail to the solicitors general in the various provinces to do something about those conditions. Thus far, with all due respect, we have only heard about conditions from inmates' rights groups, prisoners themselves perhaps, and from defence attorneys. We need a body of evidence from our judges. In my view, this would engage them to keep an accurate account of why they are giving remand based on conditions in the prisons.

However, I agree 100% with the member that the duty is on the government to step up and make sure that it resources the facilities it is in charge of.

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

Madam Speaker, I take issue with my friend on that last point. We do not know only from prisoner advocates or the defence bar, we know from Correctional Services. I know my friend wants to leave, but I have to pin him down. We know from Mr. Head and Mr. Sapers, who is very directly involved, that we have overcrowding. Mr. Head told us at committee that we had a huge number of cells designed for one inmate, in which two and, more and more often, three inmates were in them.

We also know that the justice minister came before our committee. When I asked him a question about the capacity in our prison systems to handle the additional inmates, he said that he had talked to the public safety minister and gave the assurances that we had the capacity to take additional prisoners. That was before Mr. Head, the real person who knows what is going on, because the Minister of Public Safety does not, came before us and said that we did not have the capacity. As much as he tried to be diplomatic about not contradicting his minister, he said that we were overcrowded already, that we had large numbers of cells holding two inmates, which are only designed for one, and that we had a large number of cells in which there were three inmates, and that was getting worse.

I come back to my friend from Moncton. If we have that kind of ignorance level on the part of the government, on the part of the minister responsible for corrections, what hope do we have if we pass the bill and we have that increase in population? I am not talking programming. I am talking about physical space to handle these prisoners. What assurances do we have, what sense of hope do we have that the government is going to do anything about increasing the number of prisons in the country?

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

Madam Speaker, I hope my friend was not implying I was trying to run away from a debate with him. I would never do that. I am happy to say that Don Head, the CSC official, and I have it in writing and I wrote notes at the time, assured us that Correctional Service was committed to continuing to fulfill its mandate. We also have on record, some time ago, $220 million from the government for further corrections facilities.

I share my hon. colleague's concern. However, I also throw back to him that we have a duty to make laws that are clear and fair. There are consequences of those laws. In this case, and I have highlighted it maybe four times now, the consequences of some of this legislation, and particularly this bill, may be that there is pressure on CSC and other provincial facilities. It is incumbent upon the government to ensure that it prepares for it. Having this debate, bringing that to the attention of people at committee is very much what we do as parliamentarians.

I, too, was somewhat disillusioned by the answer of the Minister of Justice in saying that he had consulted with the Minister of Public Safety. It begs perhaps a question of our own due diligence. I would submit for the member for Windsor—Tecumseh that maybe we should have had the Minister of Public Safety there. It seems many times at justice committee, we have issues that we really would like to ask of the Minister of Public Safety, for these very reasons, that we do not get a crack at because we have the Minister of Justice telling us that he has talked to him and that everything seems to be okay.

I am not getting that assurance from the answer. However, as I say, the government has the fiduciary duty. If there is harm done in this situation, it is clearly on the heads of the government members. We cannot avoid our duty in enacting, approving and supporting laws that we think make it clearer and make the judge's job easier to administer the law and more useful to us by those endorsements that will report on conditions in our prisons across the country.

[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.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Repentigny. I am truly surprised by his keen awareness, in spite of his young age or because of it, of the various problems that could arise for young people from certain measures that the government wants to put in place. I find it very refreshing to find him so knowledgeable about these measures and their repercussions, especially given that he has barely left adolescence behind him and that he probably has some youthful pranks in his past, as we all do.

Therefore, it seems that he is very knowledgeable about this matter and that he has spoken to a number of young people to ascertain that jail is not necessarily a good means of rehabilitation.

I would like my young colleague to explain to me how a party in power can refuse to comply with rulings made by courts, tribunals and judges. How can a government that refuses to accept and comply with these rulings presume to decide for its population that what is not good for some of them will be good for criminals or individuals who make youthful mistakes? How can that be? Why is there a double standard?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Laval and tell her that I was a very well-behaved adolescent.

I must say that I find the government's approach very dangerous, when it says that it will be tough on crime, it will enforce the laws and it will impose penalties. The government is trying to play the matador, beating its chest to try to show criminals that it is strong and tough, even though it does not even comply with Federal Court decisions. I find that extremely problematic.

This Conservative government is clearly inconsistent. It has proven this on many occasions, and we have seen it in the House during many question periods. We still do not have an answer. The government is still saying that it will read the documents and give an answer later. It is always putting things off.

We have seen this in the Abdelrazik case, which was before the Federal Court. The court ruled against the federal government. And even though he has had two days to read 100 pages, all the Minister of Justice will say is that he will read the file and eventually give an answer. Meanwhile, Canadians are being left to perish in horrible conditions abroad. This is totally unacceptable. As I told my colleague from Laval earlier, many people in my riding are outraged by that.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a comment that is not too harsh. It is a small criticism directed at the Bloc and its support for this bill.

The information obtained by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights indicates that there is not enough room for inmates in provincial and federal prisons. As far as I know, the Bloc likes to portray itself in this House as the protector of the interests of Quebec and its citizens. Having said that, we know that in Quebec, as in all the other provinces, the jails are full and there is no money to expand them.

I ask my Bloc colleague, is it not irresponsible to support this bill, because it will increase the number of inmates in the province of Quebec and in all the other provincial and federal prisons?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand my NDP colleague's concerns, but as I said earlier, our job is to legislate. This is an excellent bill, and I am a little disappointed that the NDP is against it because it could really help keep prisoners in jail and ensure better outcomes for victims' family and friends.

Of course, now we will have to deal with another problem: lack of funding to build and expand prisons. Take Laval, for example. One of my colleagues presented a petition concerning a former penitentiary that had been closed. The Conservatives say that they are trying to keep crime in check. As I have said, they claim they are trying to get tough, but unfortunately, they are not putting up enough cash to make it happen.

Another problem is that there is a shortage of resources not just for prisons, but also for police forces.

We have to take a much more comprehensive look at the issue. For once, the government has given us a good bill. We have to take advantage of this opportunity and support it because this is something we have been asking for for years. Now it is clear that we will have another job to do. I encourage my NDP colleagues, along with my Liberal colleagues, to get involved in a new campaign to fund prisons.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a small population of individuals in Canada who commit crimes and are inveterate criminals. One of the great challenges we have, and one of the things that makes the public angry and our police officers dispirited, is that these inveterate criminals appear to be thumbing their noses at the justice system because they receive small penalties and are able to revolve quickly through it.

That small group of people has to be separated from the majority of individuals, who often have other problems such as dual diagnosis, fetal alcohol syndrome, fetal alcohol effects, psychiatric problems and substance abuse issues. That population of people who are basically committing misdemeanours has to be removed.

However, I want to ask my colleague what he thinks we should do for that small population of individuals who have essentially made a conscious decision, without any mitigating factors, that they are going to commit crimes against Canadian citizens. What things can we do, as all of us believe must be done, to strengthen the rights of victims in Canada?

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I recently attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with our colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. He told me that close to 39% of people in prison have problems such as fetal alcohol syndrome and mental illness. A comprehensive approach is therefore needed. Eliminating two-for-one crediting of time would be one way to make sure that these people remain in prison. If they are sentenced to 25 years, then they should serve 25 years. If they are sentenced to 15 years, then they should serve 15 years.

Of course, we also need to work on the reasons these criminals commit these crimes, reasons such as poverty and mental illness. There should also be a major initiative to address these issues.

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

Madam Speaker, we are confronted with an interesting phenomenon in this piece of legislation. It seems fairly straightforward. It is a very small piece of legislation. There are really only two sections to it when we actually analyze it.

What it does is bring to the fore a debate and an analysis that we as parliamentarians should be involving ourselves in to a much greater degree than we have up to this point.

The reason we have not done so up to this point with the government--and I would have to be critical of the prior Liberal administrations over the last decade or so--is that we are confronted with this reality: we have declining crime, but increasing populations in our prisons, both at the provincial level and at the federal level.

Another phenomenon that I think very few members of this Parliament understand is the shift that has occurred over roughly the last 10 years in the number of people incarcerated in pretrial detention centres, as opposed to those who are incarcerated after sentencing, whether at the provincial level or at the federal level.

The ratio of the pretrial, pre-sentencing, custodial population and the post-sentencing population has reversed itself. It used to be roughly two to one; that is, one-third of the population in incarceration in this country at any given time would be in pretrial custody, and two-thirds would have been incarcerated post-sentencing and would be in our federal prisons. I want to be clear that I am only talking about the adult population.

We have a provision within the Criminal Code that allows our judges, as a sentencing guideline, to take into account the pretrial custody period of time, and the conditions, in sentencing after conviction.

Over a period of time, as the number of individuals in pretrial custody shifted to such larger percentages and a corresponding deterioration occurred in the conditions in those detention centres, a practice grew up in our courts--and this is true at provincial court levels across the country, in the territories and at the federal superior court level--for the judges to begin universally granting credit for that pretrial custody in excess of a one-to-one ratio.

In fact, by the time this bill came before this House, it was fairly common for credit to be given--on average, for all sentences--at close to a two-to-one ratio. Actually, as we heard in the committee, it is somewhat less than two, but it is right around there.

Then in some extraordinary cases over the last two or three years, we also had the phenomenon developing across the country of credit being given at a three-to-one ratio. The reason for that was not only the basic humanity of our judges, but also our international obligations: as a nation, we have signed on to protocols to treat our prisoners in a humane fashion in both pretrial settings and post-sentencing settings.

One of the specific provisions in those international protocols is that prisoners serve their time in cells that are designed for one person and that have only one person in them. What has occurred in both the pretrial custody setting and more and more in the post-sentencing setting is that we are finding people in ratios greater than one to one in the cells. As often as not, it is three to one, and in some cases it is four to one.

I am going to concentrate my remarks on some of these detention centres, because this evidence was before our courts on a regular basis. Some of them are very old, there is no programming in terms of any education and sanitary conditions generally are poor. We can go down the list.

As the judiciary across the country heard evidence on this in individual cases, the practice of granting two-to-one credits became very common. It was almost universal. It was not mandated by any statute, whether our corrections statutes or the Criminal Code. It is certainly not in any sentencing guidelines in the code. It was simply because judges, on an individual basis, knew how bad the conditions were in the detention centres where they were placing people.

That was all about the judiciary trying to send a message to the political level of government, the administrative level of government, that they had to do something about this. We have signed on to these international protocols and have the responsibility to treat prisoners humanely, and we are not doing it. That is really the message that was going out.

The message that was received was that judges were just going off on their own and playing around with this. I have heard sometimes offensive comments from legislators at both the provincial and the federal levels attacking our judiciary, believing that somehow they were granting two-to-one and three-to-one credits just on whims.

That is not the reality. We have an excellent judiciary. I have said this in the House before and I am going to repeat it again. If we do not have the best judiciary in the world, there are none that are better. That is true whether we are at the provincial court level or at the federal level of judicial appointments.

They do not do this on a whim. For the better part of a decade they have been wanting to send the message to the legislators that we are not getting it, because we are not deploying necessary resources. Not only are we not deploying the necessary resources to clean up the pretrial detention centres, but at this federal level of government, in this chamber--and this has been true of not just the Conservatives, although they may be going a little faster than the Liberals--we are consistently going quite rapidly toward increasing the number of charges that would result in jail times. We are also increasing the length of time that people are spending in jail.

The result is that we have this backlog in our courts, as more and more defendants are not pleading guilty. We have rules that are developing that require greater disclosure. That again is justifiable in terms of a fair trial, but it is taking longer for cases to get through, so we have this growing population, now at almost a two-to-one ratio, in pretrial custody in conditions that by international standards are not humane. Our judges want the legislators at both the provincial and federal levels to do something about that.

Instead of doing something about it--instead of deploying added resources or perhaps using other mechanisms, such as community programming, to divert prisoners from lengthier sentences--what we do is respond with this piece of legislation, in effect saying to the courts that we do not trust their judgment on how to handle pretrial credits.

This bill really is quite disrespectful to judges in that regard. It says that we are going to impose mandatory requirements. If this bill goes through--as it almost certainly is going to, because the other three parties are clearly going to support it--we are going to mandate only one-to-one credit as the standard. The effect of that is to lengthen the time people will spend in post-trial custody.

In circumstances that are justifiable, the bill will allow judges to go to 1.5-to-one credit, even though, as I said earlier, the standard across the country is now closer to two to one on average.

I was very clear in committee to try to get this information. There are no additional resources being planned to assist the provinces because all the pretrial detention centres, with very few exceptions in the territories, are operated by the provinces. There is absolutely no plan on the part of the government to provide the provinces with additional resources for better quality settings for pretrial detention centres. The conditions will remain as they are and get worse at the pretrial level.

We heard from lawyers who appeared in committee that we inevitably would be faced with a charter challenge. We are not in keeping with the international standard on to which we have signed. We already know what the standard is. It is not like we can argue we are close to it. We are not and we know that. The standard is a very clear one at the international level. That is offensive to the section 12 of the charter, which requires us not to provide for cruel and unusual punishment, and it amounts to that.

If we proceed with this, all we will do is provide the scenario or circumstances for a while. I think the courts will do what they can to provide the 1.5 credit because the circumstances will be bad enough to do that. Inevitably, there will be a charter challenge and I have believe that challenge will be successful.

If a charter challenge is successful, there has to be a result to that. There has to be a diminution on the part of the court to compensate for the charter breach. We then are going to find and more and more judges making a finding of a charter breach and releasing more and more prisoners from custody. I do not find any appreciation on the part of the Minister of Justice of this.

Judges will provide bail when they would not have otherwise or they will release them, maybe even dismiss the charges because of the breach of the charter, specifically section 12, cruel and unusual punishment. That is coming down the road. All this bill does is hasten it coming.

I want to be quite clear about this. Even if we do not pass the bill, that will probably happen, unless the federal government provides additional resources to divert or build more prisons. Again, there is no indication that it will do that.

I want to talk about another consequence of the legislation. Maybe one has to have practised law for a while to appreciate the reality of this. If this goes through as proposed and the courts can grant, in justifiable circumstances, an extension from the 1 to 1 credit to the 1.5 to 1 credit, much more evidence will have to be presented to the court. Even if there is a guilty plea, instead of sentencing taking on average—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I regret having to interrupt the hon. member. He will have approximately six minutes remaining for his comments when the debate on the bill resumes next week.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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, it would not be the first time I have disagreed with the current government in British Columbia on an issue.

I want to see evidence that this legislation will improve the safety and security of citizens before I vote for it, and I see no evidence. I do not believe any evidence was presented to demonstrate that. It is incumbent on me as a member of Parliament to look for that kind of evidence before I indicate support for a measure that is being brought forward.

I do not doubt that there are many people who believe that this is a great idea, just as there are many people in Canada who believe that capital punishment is a good idea. I would not be able to support that kind of measure. I am glad that the last time that issue came forward the House did not support it, despite massive public opinion in favour of that option. There was no evidence that it makes people safer, that it does anything to improve the security and safety of our communities and our families. I do not see that in this legislation either. I do not see how this is going to improve the system.

Again, if it had done something about actually addressing the problems that gave rise to this two for one credit system, then maybe it would be supportable, but I do not see any evidence that there has been any attention whatsoever paid to that.

I do have real difficulties with this legislation. I do not think it will accomplish the goals that even the government has proclaimed it attempts to address.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to you very carefully. I was concentrating and I will follow up on the comments of my hon. colleague. Although it rarely happens, the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of a justice bill. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-25, which we are debating here today.

As an experienced criminal lawyer, I can talk about this bill and the mistakes that have been made. What exactly will happen in reality? Consider this example. Someone is arrested and presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. However, the basic principle that has emerged, and has been confirmed and put into practice by the Supreme Court in recent years has been the release of the offender.

When an individual is brought before a justice of the peace to face a charge laid against him, the prevailing principle is that he must be released. As members know, in our judicial system, the general rule that an offender must be released pending trial has evolved over the years. The accused is released, and often the trial is not held for six months, a year or even two years. Because of the complexity of the evidence, such as evidence of fraud or even often in murder cases, it can take one, two or even three years before the accused stands trial. If he is released in the meantime, the damage is lessened and the court will have to take this into account in handing down a sentence if the accused is found guilty.

Section 500 of the Criminal Code, which I will not go over in its entirety, provides for statutory release. However, when the accused is at risk of reoffending or has no fixed address, for example, he may be kept in custody pending trial. There is a whole series of legal provisions and court decisions, right up to the Supreme Court, that cover and provide a framework for this right to release or the obligation to remain in custody pending trial.

I have made a lengthy digression to get to the point at issue. What happens once the decision is made to keep the accused in custody pending his trial? That is when all the principles of Bill C-25 come into play. This is what happens. The accused is held pending his trial. Under the rules that have been established, the accused is not held in the same wing or the same place as convicted offenders. Why? Because he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Until his trial takes place, if the court decides to keep the accused in custody, he is kept in preventive custody. In legal jargon, this is known as being in remand. After the preliminary hearing or before the trial, the accused can ask to be released.

I have some specific examples. Let us say the accused was kept in custody because he had no fixed address. He can come before the court a week after being remanded in custody and prove to the court that he now has an address. He will therefore be released because the overriding principle is the right to be released until it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.

What happens when someone is kept in custody? If the trial takes place in one month, two months, three months, six months, one year or even two years and the accused in kept in custody, that time counts double.

That is the legal jargon. The Supreme Court and the appeal courts—confirmed by the Supreme Court—have said that since the accused does not have all of his rights, since he does not have the same rights as someone who is put in custody after being sentenced, he therefore has the right to have time spent in pre-sentencing custody counted. Customarily, that time has counted two for one, or at least it did before Bill C-25.

So what happens? For example, an accused is found guilty on 12 counts of breaking and entering. He was held in remand for one year while he was waiting for the case to be sorted out and to appear before a judge. I speak from experience, since in the past I have represented accused persons who were going to plead guilty in their case. So what did we do? Some individuals had been rather busy and had committed crimes all over the place, in several legal jurisdictions. So, while the authorities were sorting out the case, the accused was held in remand. The judge was then told that since the accused had been in remand for six months, the judge should apply the two for one rule. For example, if the court had decided to sentence the accused to one year in jail, and he had already spent six months in pre-sentencing custody—multiplied by two—he would be released immediately.

That has outraged citizens. Those listening realize that, in some cases, there may be excesses. We cannot prejudge, we cannot force them to say so but there have been fortuitous coincidences. Repeat offenders, criminals, decided that they would remain in prison, that is in remand for six months, a year or two years. It happened just a few months ago in Quebec. An alleged mafia leader was kept in preventive custody for two years for drug trafficking, importing and gangsterism. The court told him that it intended to impose a four year sentence. Since he had been in remand for two years—two years times two equals four—the person in question, even though he was accused of very serious crimes, was released because he had spent two years in preventive detention, thank you very much.

Bill C-25 will set limits—which I believe is a good thing—on this right. It will remain but it will no longer be two for one, that is one day in remand will reduce the sentence by two days, or one month by two months, or one year by two years. This bill sets limits and requires the judge to give reasons. The sentence will be reduced by a maximum of one day for every day spent in detention. That is the principle that will prevail with Bill C-25. What will happen? The accused, and therefore probably his lawyer as well, will want to go to court quickly. When a lawyer knows that his client wants to go to trial he may try to do so quickly. We have one concern about this aspect of the bill, which we discussed in committee. Governments must provide the means for courts to move quickly.

At present, the accused quite often has to wait many months to go to trial. That is a fact.

There are, though, a number of places in Canada where an individual charged has little choice but to let his trial drag on for months. I will provide some examples. The court that travels to all the villages along the shore of James Bay and Ungava Bay—Salluit, Puvirnituq, Inukjuak and Kuujjuaq—is called an itinerant court, or a circuit court. Unfortunately for a person charged and in custody there, the court does not travel there every week. And so in the individual's case this can be mentioned, as provided in the bill, and the court can take the conditions into account. It cannot give credit of more than a day and a half for each day of custody.

Let me explain that. If an individual who has been charged has been in custody for three months, the court must take a month and a half into account. If the court wants to impose a six month sentence, for example, it can subtract a month and a half from the punishment of detention and then impose sentence accordingly, explaining it correctly.

There is only one problem with this bill, but we think it is a sizeable one. This bill will pass of course, because the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the present government support it. It was all very well for the government to want to have this legislation passed, but I have misgivings about the programs that should be put in place and the help that should be provided to the legal system so that cases can go to trial sooner than they do now.

It is no secret that there is currently a huge backlog of trials. Throughout Quebec's court districts and in those I am familiar with in Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, here in Gatineau—or Hull, if you prefer—in Abitibi and in La Tuque, anyone wanting a quick trial has to wait 6 to 12 months.

For instance, a person arrested for impaired driving today, June 8, has very little chance of going to trial before early 2010. It is practically impossible, given the backlog in the courts. This backlog, it must be understood, is not due just to the efforts of lawyers trying to delay cases. It is not due just to the efforts of the accused who want to take their time, are in no hurry and are adding to the number of procedures. It is not that at all.

At the moment, there is a backlog in the courts because there are not enough resources or judges. Judges who have retired or are preparing to retire are not being replaced. There is a real shortage. I am obviously talking about the situation in Quebec, which I know well. In Quebec, at the moment, there are clearly not enough crown attorneys for charges to be considered and pressed within the time frame.

As this problem is part of my background, I can talk about it. There will be a problem with legal aid. We asked the minister whether there would be additional funding to the provinces. It must be understood—and those watching us must also understand—that the administration of justice is a provincial matter. The provinces administer justice. Obviously, circuit court trials are not held every week. In certain judicial districts, a trial may be held only every two or three years, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about trials before the Court of Quebec, criminal division. I say, with all due respect, that the current time frame is 6 to 12 months.

Going to trial quickly would not be possible, even if we wanted to, because of a shortage of judges and crown prosecutors. Often, in the cases we are talking about, the accused get little representation, if any. We do not have enough defence and legal aid lawyers anywhere in Canada. There are too few of them to provide the services to which accused persons are entitled.

I understand, as the Conservatives will no doubt remind us, that they are concerned about the victims. I agree, but at the same time those who are accused must not become the victims of a rigid and cumbersome judicial system that is no longer able to administer justice because it is clogged with too many pending cases. That is what this bill deals with. That is why it includes a provision allowing each day spent in custody to count for up to one and one-half days.

We have to be careful, though. Individuals must not have been held in custody because they have a record or for breach of bail. Conditions do apply for each day spent in custody to count for one and one-half days. The individual must not have a record or be detained because of a breach of conditional release. Let me explain this last point.

The general rule is that the accused is released pending trial. Pending trial, the accused has the right to be released. The individual may be released under conditions like abstaining from consuming alcohol, from frequenting certain bars or from driving a motor vehicle, if charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm or death. The individual will be released, but if the court-imposed release conditions are breached, he or she will be held in custody, and the two-for-one or 1.5-for-one rule will not apply.

It is recognized that, in some specific and exceptional situations, it can be appropriate to subtract the days spent in custody before and during a trial from the sentence. I have some examples. The public must understand that an individual in pre-sentencing custody does not have the same rights as an individual who has been sentenced. I had the Minister of Justice acknowledge that none of the programs in Quebec remand centres apply to prisoners in pre-sentencing custody. While awaiting trial, the accused person watches television and plays cards.

The Department of Justice and the Department of Public Safety must absolutely set aside funds so that we at least provide some services. Someone who is in custody on a sixth charge of impaired driving causing bodily harm may have a problem with alcohol. Now, the person in custody receives absolutely no services. We would like the government to set aside money so that remand centres can at least help these people start some kind of rehabilitation.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-25. However, I must note that the government will have to be aware of the problems it could cause. We could end up with overcrowding in remand centres.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my hon. colleague from Quebec.

His province has a very serious problem with organized crime. On the first nations reserve of Akwesasne there is a serious issue in the trafficking and sale of contraband tobacco. It is one of multiple products from which organized crime gangs are deriving their money.

Organized crime on the American side of the border is producing cigarettes that are one-fifth to one-eighth the price of legal, over-the-counter cigarettes. As a result of that, more than 40% of cigarettes in that part of Canada are actually illegal. The impact upon children is huge. It is a huge public health disaster for first nations children and non-first nations children in that area.

Does my friend not think that this is a very serious issue, and that the federal government must work with the Akwesasne First Nation leadership as well as police forces to arrest this cancer that is destroying these societies?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have strayed from the subject, but I do agree with my friend from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

There is a serious problem. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for aboriginal affairs and northern development, so I am very familiar with aboriginal issues, especially the Akwesasne issue. The Akwesasne issue was not very complicated. We are the ones who made it complicated. We set up the Cornwall border crossing on the Akwesasne reserve without even talking to the first nations. It was established in 1950.

There is only one solution: either the Conservatives or the Liberals who succeed them will have to listen to people. Somebody will have to make a decision. It is not complicated. The government just has to relocate the Akwesasne crossing. The government has to get it off the reserve and put it somewhere else. That will not stop the sale of contraband cigarettes. There is only one way to fight that. The government has to work with Mohawk police forces, the RCMP, the FBI—because the United States is involved—and the OPP. Everyone has to work together to stop the sale of illegal cigarettes.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca, and may I remind him that his question ought to be relevant to Bill C-25.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that it actually will be because it relates to truth in sentencing for those who are convicted of very serious offences.

Does my hon. friend not think that the public has a right to know that the amount of sentencing a person receives is actually the time that somebody will spend? One of the issues that is very difficult to understand is that people automatically get a third of their sentences off when they are convicted. Sometimes it could be much more than that, in fact 50%.

Does he not think that time off for so-called good behaviour should actually be based on people's ability to avail themselves of the resources to deal with substance abuse issues or psychiatric problems if they have them, and skills training, and that those should be the requirements and the standards that people should have to meet before they are allowed to have so-called time off for good behaviour?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I see it, there are two problems. Allow me to explain. First, we have the time before the sentence and the time after the sentence. An individual in custody awaiting trial has no right to any services. Neither innocent people—I have to choose my words carefully—in custody because of strong evidence against them, nor hardened criminals in remand have the right to any services.

That is why the courts have been told that time served must count. These individuals do not do anything while in custody because there are no programs for them.

The second problem arises once the individual has been sentenced. We raised this issue, and I will continue to raise it in the House. The problem is not going to prison, but leaving prison. People get out too soon. They do not serve their full sentences.

How can we put a program in place to help and rehabilitate people who have an alcohol or drug problem if they are sentenced to three years in jail? The moment they go in, they are told that because they are such good guys, they only have to serve one year. We just cannot do that. I think that we will have to take a closer look at the parole service very soon.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend raised a very good point. He is suggesting that elimination of the two for one and three for one remand credit is not something that is necessarily desirable because individuals are being placed in custody where there are no services. I suggest to the member that if indeed services are not available at the provincial level, as they are at the federal level, then the solution is not to maintain a two for one or three for one credit, it is to enhance the resources at the provincial level.

My question to my hon. friend is this. Why would he not focus in on improving the resources at the provincial level rather than maintaining a sentencing practice that most Canadians find quite abhorrent?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it does not happen often, but I agree with my colleague. It is rare that I agree with someone from the Conservative Party on matters of justice, but in this case I do. I agree because it all makes sense. We cannot practice piecemeal justice. We must consider the fact that people who are sentenced must serve their time. When judges impose sentences, they speak directly to the offenders. We must trust our judges. I believe they are the best people to identify offenders' problems and tell them how much time they have to serve. If a judge sentences someone to three years, it is not normal that he or she should be released after one year. It is absolutely unacceptable. However, we do have a problem with the Conservatives on one other point. They send many people to prison, even before their trials, as well as afterwards. They want to impose minimum prison sentences, but will not provide the money needed. They are not helping to implement the rehabilitation and reintegration programs these inmates need.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will follow up my first question with another one. If in fact my friend is so opposed to custodial sentences, why does he not take note of the fact that it is actually the provinces themselves, the ones that presumably do not have the resources to provide the services to those who are in pretrial custody, like British Columbia, that are demanding that we get rid of the two for one and three for one remand credit? I would like his comment on that.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that many people are calling for the elimination of this two-for-one crediting of time. I know that. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this, but not because the two-for-one credit is being eliminated and judges are being asked to justify their decisions to impose, instead of a two-for-one credit, 1.5-for-one, whereby one day of detention is worth a day and a half. The problem is that once that is established, we must realize that the provinces are calling for the elimination of this two-for-one credit, except that Quebec and the other regions of Canada must be given the means to implement rehabilitation and reintegration programs. That is what is missing. Those programs currently do not exist. My colleague is quite right. All the provinces are asking to eliminate it, but the Conservatives must remember that the provinces have also asked for reintegration and rehabilitation programs in order to begin working with individuals awaiting trial, who might become inmates in the coming months.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my caucus on the final stage of Bill C-25. I want to put on record very clearly that my leader and the New Democratic caucus are in support of Bill C-25. This does not mean there is not a need for debate and discussion. It does not mean there is not and was not a place for amendments.

I want to commend the work of our colleague, the justice critic for the New Democratic Party, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, for his steadfast work in this area. My colleague has spent hours and hours dealing with this barrage of crime bills coming forward from the Conservatives, which are often narrow in scope, multitudinous in numbers and not always complete in analysis.

In most cases, the bills brought forward by government have needed some changes. They would not have lived up to a charter challenge. They were not necessarily in line with provincial jurisdictions, or they were completely lacking in terms of the comprehensive approach required with respect to crime in our country today.

We have been very diligent in doing our work on this side of the House, trying to improve the bills that have been brought forward by the government when it comes to crime and safety.

This bill is no exception. My colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh worked very hard to improve the bill at committee, but he was unsuccessful.

However, in the final analysis we have always supported the notion of changing the two for one credit in our remand system. In fact, I want to remind members that long before the Conservatives brought forward this bill, an all party delegation from the province of Manitoba, led by the Premier Gary Doer, accompanied by leaders of both the Conservative and Liberal Parties, as well as the mayor for of the city of Winnipeg, came to Ottawa to meet with all parties to present a number of solutions that dealt with crime and public security.

One of those solutions in fact was the two for one question.

My colleagues from the provincial legislature came to this place asking the government to work and move as expeditiously as possible to change the two for one approach.

That matter has also been raised on two occasions at least of federal-provincial-territorial meetings. Back in October 2006 and then again in November 2007 federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice dealt with this issue among others and reached a consensus to change, to remove, to eliminate the two for one arrangement. The justice minister in Manitoba, the Hon. Dave Chomiak and before him the Hon. Gord Mackintosh were front and centre in the move to make these changes.

Why, despite the fact we think the bill is not perfect, despite the fact we think the government's approach is less than comprehensive and complete, will we support C-25? It has to do with this whole evaluation, the question of value of pretrial custody. The reason we have had this two for one approach, which for all the listeners involved will know, this means for every year, month or day people spend in custody that two years, that two months, that two days are taken off their final sentence.

Over the years we have moved to a two for one and sometimes a three for one arrangement for a couple of reasons and they cannot be ignored because are important reasons.

One is it took into account, and judges had the discretion to do this, the conditions in the remand centre. It took into account the absence of training and health and support networks at the remand centre level. It did not say that it was simply too bad that we as a society had this horrible penal system and terrible remand conditions under one for one. The judges had some discretion to say that, in those horrible conditions, with the lack of supports and opportunities for rehabilitation, we needed to at least change the one for one to two for one or three for one.

Sometimes, we do things that have other effects, which are not always in the best interests of our society. In this case, we run into some problems with the two for one proposal. There have certainly been inconsistent determinations of the value for pre-trial custody. Now we are in a situation where a two for one credit is often routinely imposed without considering whether it is warranted. On top of that, it is absolutely the case, without doubt, that the conditions in remand facilities today are often the same as those faced by sentenced prisoners.

Furthermore, it has been clear throughout this debate that people have taken advantage of this system. There are indications that accused persons who intend to plead guilty intentionally, choosing to remain in remand as long as they can in order to maximize the total amount of the remand credit they will receive. That, in turn, contributes to the problems of overcrowding in remand facilities.

There is a final reason that has to be talked about in this context, and that is the need to maintain the confidence of the public in our system and for people across the country to know we have penal, justice and corrections systems that are responsive to the goals and aspirations that we all hold for our society. They are goals and values that say the following: We as a society must be forever focused on the need to prevent crime in the first place. That is the first aspiration of Canadians on this issue.

Second, as a government and Parliament, we must do everything in our power to protect citizens from crime and unsafe conditions in their homes, neighbourhoods and communities.

Third, Canadians expect us to put in place punishments that fit the crime.

Although it is impossible to deal with all three of those great values and fundamentals of our justice system, the three-legged stool if I can put it that way, through this bill, we can at least acknowledge what Bill C-25 does in terms of those interests.

We can point to other areas that require government action to compliment and support this approach. On its own in isolation, simply changing and removing the two for one credit and moving it toward 1.5:1 or one for one in some circumstances will not fix the problem of overcrowding in the remand centres. It does not necessarily ensure that the punishments handed out to convicted criminals are consistent with the crimes committed. We have to be vigilant on all fronts.

I recognize some of the concerns raised by my colleagues. My colleague for Burnaby—Douglas raises very legitimate concerns about the conditions found in remand centres and in our penal system in general. He described some very horrific situations.

We have all seen the heritage moment on national TV of Agnes Macphail, the first woman to get elected to the House of Commons, who in 1921 or there about, stood in the House and used a prop, which is not allowed, to demonstrate how people in prisons were being whipped, chained and punished beyond any notion of humanity. That changed things in this place. It made people realize that we all had an obligation to ensure our prisons, although places of punishment, were also not so inhumane that we would fall into what many would describe as a third world country conditions.

My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas said we should not embark on something that would take away all judicial discretion. He said that we should not forget about the important issues that bought the two for one credit in the first place. He wants to see the government and Parliament focus on the whole range of options that have to do with crime and safety in the country. That is what we all want. We support Bill C-25 because it takes a step toward dealing with a serious problem in our system today.

We call on the government today to do more than simply bring forward legislation that would require us to build more jails and lock up more people. We call on the government today to start doing what Canadians expect, which is a three-pronged approach focusing on prevention, protection and punishment.

It is not good enough for a government today to stand in this place and say that if we criticize any of its single faceted bills on specific issues in our justice system, that we are soft on crime, or because we have tried to amend something, we are soft on crime. That is hogwash and absolute rubbish.

The Conservatives have to stop playing those games. We are all trying to work together to make the best system possible. We all have the best interests of Canadians at heart. We all know we are dealing with a very complex issue that requires serious and thoughtful answers, not simplistic and narrow approaches.

I call on the government today to give some thought to what is really required. I want to start by asking it about its broken promises.

Why, since the 2006 election, when the Conservatives promised to increase the police force in the country by 2,500 officers, have they done nothing? If the Conservatives are so concerned about protecting the public, where are those police officers? Why, three years after the fact, have no police officers been added?

Why has the government continued to sit on the motion by Parliament to put labels on alcoholic beverage containers, saying that drinking during pregnancy can cause harm, which results in serious disabilities to people who in turn end up, in many cases, committing crimes and being put in jail where there is no support?

How can the Conservatives expect us all to support bills, without a lot of stats and a lot of evidence, just because on face value they appear to get tough on crime, yet turn around and say they cannot put labels on alcoholic beverages because there is no science to prove that putting on labels would deter someone from drinking? What nonsense.

If the Conservatives are serious about a comprehensive approach, if they really care about the fact that we all are interested in preventing crime, protecting the public and punishing those according to the serious nature of the crime, then surely they would take some basic preventative measures.

The Conservative government has sat on this all the time it has been in government. It has been eight years now since that motion was passed by Parliament, almost unanimously. To this day, no government, either Liberal or Conservative, has had the guts to stand up to the beer and liquor lobby groups and say it is time we put some labels on bottles to show it puts its money where its mouth is.

The government says a lot in terms of getting tough on crime. Does it ever talk about the cutbacks it has made in terms of prevention programs and training programs? Does it not realize that it is more expensive to jail children than to provide positive options?

People in the government seem determined to send more kids to jail rather than putting money in programs in terms of preventing the conditions that get them there in the first place. What about the gang prevention programs? What about the rehabilitation programs? What about training programs? What about mental health programs? What about all those things that will actually prevent kids from committing a crime in the first place? Is that not what we should be all about?

I have never heard the government talk about alternatives. I know the member for Abbotsford today talked about the fact that we cannot fix the overcrowding in remand centres through this bill. We have to get to the source of the problem and support with resources and people our remand centres, prisons and programs that help those in the corrections system. He is right. We have to go beyond simply looking at these very specific single measures and get at the roots of the problem.

Where is the government when it really counts? Where is the money for those programs? In its own jurisdiction, why does it not take some measures where it has absolute authority in terms of the federal Constitution? Why does it never mention alternatives to incarceration that have been proven successful in limiting reoffending?

I want to use the words of someone from Winnipeg who has been working very hard at eliminating unsafe conditions in a neighbourhood, which were reflected in a column by Jeffrey Simpson in The Globe and Mail. It is the Point Douglas effort to curtail crime in that neighbourhood.

As Jeffrey Simpson writes:

Two keys unlocked the Point Douglas puzzle. The neighbourhood had to be mobilized to take itself back; and zero tolerance became the order of the day. No criminal behaviour would go unreported; no houses would be left derelict; no windows would remain broken; no guns would be allowed. Community commitment and law enforcement came together in a polyglot community, with aboriginals making up more than half the population.

He rightfully concludes:

The community must be willing to save itself. It means civic authorities, police, and social agencies working together.

It means government involved in this whole project.

He says:

Success might mean that the criminal elements and slum landlords simply go to other areas of the city. But it sure has worked in Point Douglas.

There is a model that has to be considered each day, and I want to quote as well from Shauna MacKinnon, who wrote in a Winnipeg Free Press editorial on March 15:

Youth participation in gangs is a concern in urban centres across the country. Proposed solutions range from the very conservative knee-jerk reactions that lead to “lock em up” solutions, to solutions that tackle the root causes that draw children into gangs.

The research is clear. Access to skill-building recreational activities that develop self-esteem can help protect kids from the lure of gangs. But we don't really need the research to tell us this. All parents know that keeping their kids busy in sports and recreation keeps them out of trouble.

We could go on and on with those important words. I wish the government would begin to understand that it has to someday come forward with a complete response to the issues we are all concerned about when it comes to crime and safety. It cannot continue to focus only on one of the three components of a complete strategy. It cannot simply focus only on punishment. It must look at prevention and protection.

However, as I wrap this up, I will say that we recognize the importance of the step taken by this particular bill. We know that, as Sel Burrows, from Point Douglas, has told me himself, the really hard-core remands figure out to the day how long to stay in remand relative to the likely sentence, to then plead guilty once their double time count gets them released immediately or at least into provincial jail rather than penitentiary. But he went on to say that we need to remember that the poor are the ones terrorized by gangs. We need more alternative sentences for light offences and more time out for society from the hard core until we find something that works to rehabilitate them.

We look to the government for leadership on all aspects of crime and safety in our communities today. We want a multi-pronged approach. We want a government that focuses on prevention and protection, as well as appropriate punishment.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would comment on two different points. First, as we all know, there are different rationales for the criminal justice system in terms of punishment, deterrence, prevention, the sorts of different reasons we send somebody to prison or punish them. Is the member aware of any studies the government has to show that the bill would actually do something positive by way of deterrence or prevention as opposed to simply focusing on punishment, and what are her views in terms of how this will impact in those two categories?

As well, are there any studies or information she is aware of in terms of the actual capacity of the system to handle these changes, whether we can afford it, whether enough money is being put in, whether this will require the building of new jails, and whether any of this has been thought about in adequate detail in consideration?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question. I do not believe the government has provided any serious statistical analysis about the impact of this legislation on reduced pressure on our remand centres and our prisons. We do know from some of the statistics gathered by provincial governments that, in fact, when it comes to remands, the national average remand count has increased by more than 85% since 1990. A review in one province found that only 43% of those on remand for less than 30 days had applied for bail and that only 8% of those on remand longer than 30 days received bail. On any given day, about half of the new remanded prisoners will never even apply for bail and will be on remand status for several months.

That gives an idea of the impact of the present system on remand. It does not give any idea of what will happen in terms of our prisons and how the bill will change that. I will say this, though, finally we have to, as many have said, think outside the box. We have to think of creative release policies. We have to think of community escort orders. We have to think of dedicated gang outreach workers. We have to think of volunteer community supervisors, and most of all, we have to think about alternatives to keep kids out of jail in the first place, because surely if we want to start anywhere, it is crime prevention when it comes to the youngest in our society so that we do not have this repeat cycle through our penal system and continuation in a life of crime. That is the solution in the long run to this very serious issue.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of my friend's comments, obviously the Liberal Party agrees that it is very important that we look at the root causes of crime, not just incarcerating people and making things more difficult. Frankly, once somebody comes out of prison, it is important that they are rehabilitated, that there are a number of programs put in place in prison.

One of the problems right now in terms of capacity is people who suffer from mental health issues who are in prison, and there is a staggering statistic in Ontario alone of 37% to 39%, and people in the general populace who have addiction issues. These people need treatment when they are in prison so that when they come out they can be reintegrated into society. What is happening now is, because there is not enough capacity, we are getting situations where people are being released, not early with conditions so that they will have treatment.

I wonder what my friend thinks about these continuing problems and what really needs to be done and whether she supports this aspect.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me first be clear that the New Democrats, along with the Liberals, the Bloc, and the Conservatives support the bill. We support getting rid of the two for one credit and moving toward one and a half to one. However, we also know that this will not take all the pressure off the remand system and off our prison system. We have to have programs that help people once they exit the prison system. We also have to have alternatives for those at the remand level, because to sit for a long period of time in terrible conditions without training, without supports, can only cause one to continue a life of crime. So we have to be serious about rehabilitation.

Finally, it requires a government that moves beyond this very narrow approach in terms of punishment and looks at protection and prevention at the same time.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I interrupt proceedings at this time to proceed with statements by members. When the House returns to this matter, the hon. member for Winnipeg North will have five minutes remaining for questions and comments.

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 Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North had the floor for questions and comments consequent upon her speech. There are five minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments. I therefore call for questions or comments.

Seeing none, resuming debate.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about an issue that is of tremendous concern to my Etobicoke North riding, namely crime and reducing crime.

My riding is next door to Pearson International Airport and it is where many newcomers come to settle and work long hours for minimum wage, even if they were physicians or professionals back home. It is also home to a high number of single mothers, many holding down multiple jobs just to put food on the table for their children.

Consequently, over 19% of households in Etobicoke North's ward 1 and 16% in ward 2 have income under $20,000. Sadly, Etobicoke North has one of the highest crime rates in the greater Toronto area, including attempted murders, homicide, sexual assaults and other assaults. Our community also has neighbourhoods under siege, where gangs and guns are a cold hard fact of life. It has therefore been identified as 1 of 13 at-risk neighbourhoods by the city of Toronto and United Way.

In 2006 Pastor Andrew King of the Seventh-day Adventists Church described a funeral service of yet another shooting victim this way:

I'm looking at young people mourning the tragic death of this young man, surrounding a casket. And then, amidst the outpouring of tears and sorrow, the unthinkable happened. I hear pop-pop-pop. And it was outside the building. Someone then came in and said, someone's been shot.

More recently in 2008, shots tore through the window of a Rexdale coffee shop, sending four men to hospital.

My constituents, like those of other communities want the violence to stop. Therefore, I will be supporting Bill C-25, better known as the truth in sentencing act.

A judge may allow credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody in order to reduce the later sentence, largely because holding centres are overcrowded and prisoners wait too long for trials.

Clayton Ruby, one of Canada's leading defence lawyers, described detention centres as a humiliation and explained that credit was developed by courts to ease the hardship of those awaiting trial.

Canadians largely support the credit system. A national justice survey in 2007 showed that more than 75% of respondents thought that credit should be allowed in cases of non-violent offences; however, almost 60% believed that credit should not be allowed for persons convicted of serious violent offences.

Currently, for every one day served in pre-sentencing custody, a two day credit is generally given toward regular detention. Some argue that the two to one day ratio is too generous because, instinctively, it does not make common sense when convicted criminals walk out of court largely free on the day of their sentencing or have their lengthy sentences significantly reduced. For example, kidnappers recently had their sentences reduced by six years due to a two for one credit. And the formula may be applied without verifying that conditions are really harsher in pre-sentencing custody than in regular detention.

Bill C-25 would amend the Criminal Code to limit credit for time served. Under the new legislation, a judge may allow a maximum credit of one day for each day spent in pre-sentencing custody; however, if the circumstances justify it, a judge may extend the credit to 1.5 days.

The bill is the result of an agreement reached at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings of ministers of justice held in 2006 and 2007 at which the ministers decided to limit the credit for pre-sentencing custody and had proposed rules similar to the ones set out in the bill. There is strong support for this bill.

For example, Chris Bentley, the Attorney General of Ontario, welcomes the move to end the practice of giving convicted criminals double time credit, and said that it would speed up the criminal justice system. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, which has been urging the government to eliminate the two for one pretrial credit since 2000 and to bring greater accountability and consistency to the sentencing process, also welcomes the introduction of the legislation and urges all parliamentarians to pass the bill quickly.

Despite the positive feedback, the Criminal Lawyers Association calls the proposal “a step backward” that would “promote harsher sentences, produce fewer guilty pleas and give Parliament's approval to inhumane detention facilities”.

Our American neighbours have undertaken a 25 year experiment with mandatory minimum sentences for the so-called war on drugs. We need to carefully look at the evidence of what has and has not worked in the United States as well as other jurisdictions. We must ask ourselves whether we want to turn Canadian correctional institutions and penitentiaries into U.S.-style inmate warehouses.

We all know there are no quick simple fixes to reducing crime, nor are there one-size-fits-all solutions. What other solutions must we employ?

We need a comprehensive plan to attack all forms of public violence with both short-term and long-term initiatives that address immediate concerns, such as the recent increase in gun violence.

We must build on the strengths in our neighbourhoods. We must engage agencies, parents and youth in determining the future of their communities.

A visionary principal, Michael Rossetti, from Father Henry Carr Catholic Secondary School, wants to build a field of dreams for Etobicoke North, a first-class track and field centre and basketball courts for the school as well as for the whole community. Etobicoke North needs that investment as there is no athletic centre in the district.

Investment in Etobicoke North would mean more students would stay in school, less youth would be looking for belonging in gangs, and more young men and women would be eager to improve their lives, if only they were given a chance.

The field of dreams project is receiving strong support from Pat Flatley, a former alumnus of the school and New York Islander captain, who has already met with Toronto's mayor, as well as Michael "Pinball" Clemons. The principal also received letters of support from Bill Blair, chief of the Toronto Police Service, and Ron Taverner of 23 Division.

We are very fortunate in Etobicoke North to have Superintendent Ron Taverner, who believes in community development and policing. He regularly holds community handshakes, faith-based walks, and supports Breaking the Cycle, an organization aimed at getting youth out of gangs.

We must also significantly increase economic opportunities for young people. At a recent public meeting in Toronto, a youth was quoted as saying that it is easier to get a gun than a job.

We must ensure humane pretrial custody. Defence lawyer Heather Pringle described a potential situation as being locked down for 18 hours at a time, no access to rehabilitative programs coupled with nights spent sharing a cramped cell with two other guys, a shared toilet and some vermin.

We must ensure timely trials. To do this we need more courts, more facilities, and more judges.

Finally, Bill C-25 targets punishment. When might we see legislation targeted at prevention?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, not only was I impressed but I was very moved by the comments made by the member for Etobicoke North in her presentation on Bill C-25.

The Liberals are going to support this good piece of legislation.

My colleague took us into a different area and talked about preventing crime, the future and about how to address the crime that unfortunately is taking place in her riding.

She said that Etobicoke North needs investment. I am hopeful that the Conservative government now realizes that we are not just talking about infrastructure as bricks and mortar but that there is human life attached to it as well. I wonder if she would comment on that so the government perhaps could be persuaded to get the money out faster.

She referred to a young person who said that if only they were given a chance. That is a powerful, moving statement. Young people need a chance. I do not think legislation is going to do it. Other things are going to be required as well. I would like her to elaborate on this as well. She also quoted a young person who said that it is easier to get a gun than to get a job. What a powerful statement. That says it all.

Does she believe that the Conservative Party would be doing the right thing if it abolished the gun registry?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, violence is of tremendous concern in my riding. Almost 21% of constituents in my riding are single moms and 75% called somewhere else home five years ago. Many of these constituents are working two and three jobs just to put food on the table for their families. This community needs real investment and investment has not been there for decades. In many ways this is a forgotten community.

Principal Mike Rossetti has a field of dreams project, a $4 million facility that would include a track. There are students who are winning track award after track award. Unfortunately, they did not have shoes. They had been running in slippers, but people have now donated shoes. These kids deserve a chance.

An application for funding has been made under the RInC program and we are very hopeful the funding will be provided. The land has been donated by the school board and the construction is being donated. Now we need federal and provincial funding.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would like to know that it was the NDP premier of Manitoba, Gary Doer, and Attorney General Dave Chomiak who came to Ottawa on a mission on September 20, 2007 to push for the very same things that in fact spawned this bill, the elimination of two for one remand credits. She mentioned that Bill C-25 targets punishment and she wanted to know when we were going to be targeting prevention programs. That is exactly the approach the Manitoba NDP has taken over the last number of years.

For example, we have focused on prevention with programs such as lighthouses, friendship centres and education pilot projects, as well as initiatives such as the vehicle immobilizer program, the highly successful turnabout program, and intense supervision for repeat offenders.

With regard to suppression, we have produced targeted funding for police officers, corrections and crown attorneys dealing specifically with auto theft. We have certainly beefed up consequences with the lifetime suspension of driver's licences for repeat offenders. There are provincial initiatives dealing with drinking and driving which helped reduce fatalities and injuries by 25% between 1999 and 2003.

The Manitoba government certainly has been a leader in this whole area. Some of the changes it asks for in addition to the current ones dealing with this bill were to provide stronger penalties for youth involved in serious crimes, especially those involved with auto theft, allowing first degree murder charges for gang-related homicides, classifying auto theft as an indictable violent offence, and making shootings at buildings and drive-by shootings indictable offences.

That initiative from way back on September 20, 2007 has spawned a lot of the initiatives that we see here. This comes from a forward-thinking and acting NDP government in Manitoba.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right to point out that punishment is one part of the piece. We need a broad array of programs that will target crime. It is important to point out that some proponents hope that the enactment of Bill C-25 will unclog the courts as lawyers will be less likely to deliberately delay proceedings so their clients can be given two for one credit and think there may be shorter terms of imprisonment automatically.

Again, I would like to talk about the prevention side. This means keeping our youth and children in schools and making sure they are able to get jobs afterward.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party put forward an early learning head start program for children. The evidence shows that this type of program goes a long way to preventing a whole host of social problems. That type of program has proven to reduce youth crime by 60%. Imagine a program that reduces youth crime by 60% and has a $7 saving for every $1 invested. There is ample evidence from New Brunswick to Hawaii, to Ypsilanti, Michigan, to show without a shadow of a doubt the quantifiable evidentiary support for this program.

Does my colleague not think that the federal government is missing a huge opportunity and that it made a grave error for the security and safety of the public when it tore up the agreement with the provinces?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, early childhood education is very important. For every dollar invested, there is a three dollar to four dollar return, particularly in vulnerable areas. When it comes to crime, the return on investment can be eight times the dollar invested, an eight dollar return for every dollar invested.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)