Bill C-25 (Historical)

Truth in Sentencing Act

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

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

Truth in Sentencing Act

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

moved that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for seconding this bill. It is very important legislation and is an important part of this government's agenda. We are opening debate on the truth in sentencing act. The amendments to the Criminal Code proposed in this bill will limit the credit that a court may grant a convicted criminal for time served in pre-sentence custody.

As some in the House may be aware, section 719(3) of the Criminal Code allows a court to take account of the time a convicted criminal has spent in pre-sentencing custody in determining the sentence to be imposed. The code does not set out any formula for calculating this credit, but the courts routinely give credit on a two-for-one basis. In many cases the courts give credit on a three-to-one basis. In other words, for every day a convicted offender has spent in remand, the court will deduct from the sentence it otherwise would impose, two or three days.

Explanations for the length of a sentence are usually provided in open court at the time of sentencing. However, judges are not required to explain the basis for their decision to award pre-sentence credit. As a result, they do not always do so and this deprives the public of information about the extent of the pre-sentence detention. It leaves people in the dark about why the detention should allow a convicted criminal to receive what is most often considered to be a discounted sentence. This creates the impression that offenders are getting more lenient sentences than they deserve.

There is a concern that the current practice of awarding generous credit for pre-sentence custody may be encouraging some of those accused to abuse the court process by deliberately choosing to stay in remand in the hope of getting a shorter term of imprisonment once they have been awarded credit for time served.

For ordinary Canadians, it is hard to understand how such sentences comply with the fundamental purposes of sentencing, which is to denounce unlawful conduct, deter the offender from committing other offences and protect society by keeping convicted criminals off the streets.

The practice of awarding generous credit erodes public confidence in the integrity of the justice system. It also undermines the commitment of the government to enhance the safety and security of Canadians by keeping violent or repeat offenders in custody for longer periods.

Those who defend the current practice note that credit for pre-sentence custody compensates for the fact that the time a convicted criminal has spent in remand does not count toward eligibility for full parole or statutory release.

At present, a prison inmate is eligible for full parole after one-third of the sentence has been served. If parole is not granted, that same inmate will likely be set free on statutory release at the two-thirds point in the sentence. What this means in practice is that if someone is released on full parole at the one-third point in the sentence, every day he or she has served in prison will have counted, in effect, for three days.

If parole is denied and at the same time a person is set free on statutory release at the two-thirds point in the sentence, every day he or she has served in prison will have counted, in effect, as a day and a half.

The current system of presumptive release that currently underpins Canada's approach to corrections has recently been the subject of an exhaustive review by an independent panel. This panel's report entitled “A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety” was delivered by my colleague, the former minister of public safety, in October 2007.

Among other things, the independent review panel recommended that statutory release be entirely eliminated and that Canada move toward a system of earned parole. The goal is to encourage prison inmates to sincerely apply themselves to the rehabilitative programs available to them in prison.

The practice of awarding generous credit for pre-sentence custody cannot rest on the foundation of a statutory release and parole system that has itself been subject to strong and impartial criticism and that may therefore be significantly changed in the future. However, those who defend the current practice note that the generous credit for pre-sentencing custody is also designed to take into account such factors as overcrowding and lack of rehabilitative programming for inmates in remand centres.

I have received many letters and representations from concerned Canadians on the issue of pre-sentencing custody credit. All too often they cite situations where violent offenders are set free after having served a relatively short prison term because a court has awarded them two or three to one credit for pre-sentence custody. One writer commented that if one of the purposes of incarceration is to reform criminals, then the current practice of awarding two for one is a dismal failure. He writes:

The rationale is that the criminal has been deprived of the benefits of programs that would be made available to him in a regular penitentiary. So, in addition to releasing him back into society without these rehabilitating programs, we send him out twice as fast.

It is hard to disagree with that.

Not only does the current practice deprive offenders of the prison programs that might help to keep them out of jail in the future, it also fails to punish them adequately for the deeds that led to their convictions in the first place. This is especially the case of those offenders who have been denied bail and sent to a remand centre because of their past criminal records or because they have violated their bail conditions.

Bad behaviour should not be rewarded.

This government is on record as having pledged to address this issue, something that the bill would do. We have tabled Bill C-25 to strictly limit the amount of credit the courts may grant to convicted criminals for the time they have served in custody prior to their sentencing.

Our government is following through on its commitment to ensure that individuals found guilty of crimes serve a sentence that reflects the severity of those crimes.

This bill would accomplish a number of important objectives. It would deliver on our promise to provide truth in sentencing. It would help to unclog our court system and avoid costly delays and would do this by providing the courts with clear guidance and limits for granting credit for time served.

The Criminal Code amendments tabled on March 27 clearly stipulate that the general rule should be one day credit for each day served in pre-sentence custody. If circumstances justify it, credit may be given at a ratio of up to one and a half days for each day served. In such cases, however, the courts would be required to explain the circumstances that warrant departing from the general rule of one to one credit. This would allow the judge the discretion to award credit of up to one and half to one in appropriate cases. That being said, when it comes to offenders who have violated bail or who have been denied bail because of their criminal record, credit for time served would be strictly limited to a one to one ratio without exception.

I want to repeat that no extra credit would be granted under any circumstances for repeat offenders or those who have violated their bail conditions.

The proposed amendments would provide greater certainty and clarity in sentencing. It would require the courts to provide written justification for any credit granted beyond the one to one ratio. The courts would also be required to state in the record the amount of time spent in custody, the term of imprisonment that would be imposed before any credit is granted, the amount of time credited and the sentence imposed. Canadians would no longer be left wondering about how a particular sentence has been arrived at in a particular case.

Although sentencing issues are complex, they are issues of utmost importance to this government. We need to work closely with our provincial and territorial partners to deal with the many issues associated with sentencing reform.

Extra credit for time spent in pre-sentence custody is widely seen as one of several factors that have contributed to significant increases in the remand population in the last few years. This significant growth has put provincial and territorial institutions under considerable pressure.

Since 2007, more people have been held in provincial and territorial remand centres than were serving sentences in provincial and territorial jails. Overall, remanded accused now represent about 60% of admissions to provincial and territorial jails.

Several factors are at work that may contribute to the fact that the remand population is rising. Across Canada, court cases are becoming more complex due partly to the rise in the number of complex drug and organized crime related prosecutions. Many cases now involve 10 and 20 appearances before the courts. Longer processing times mean longer stays in remand.

For example, in 1994-95 about one-third of those in remand were being held for more than a week. Ten years later, however, those held for more than a week had grown to almost half of the remand population. This is a significant drain on resources at a time when the justice system is already under strain with an increasingly heavy workload.

Trials are becoming longer which also increases the amount of time an accused is remanded. All of this adds up to an increase in the remand population. The result is that offenders spend less time in sentenced custody because they spend too long in remand, which is why the provinces and territories welcome the reforms contained in Bill C-25.

Many of my colleagues and I stood with provincial attorneys general and solicitors general when our government announced the introduction of Bill C-25 on March 25. I was in British Columbia with the attorney general, Wally Oppal; the mayor of Surrey, Dianne Watts; the Vancouver police chief, Jim Chu; and other police representatives, including a member of the Canadian Police Association. This all took place at the Surrey remand centre. I was so pleased to be joined by a number of my colleagues who have been very supportive of this initiative and all of the initiatives that this government has taken to combat crime.

I hope I am not embarrassing him when I say that I was pleased to be there with the member for North Vancouver, and I thank him for his support. I thank the chairman of the justice committee, the member for Abbotsford, and one of the women who has been pushing this issue for quite some time, the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells. Mr. Speaker, you know of her commitment.

I was also pleased to be joined on that date by the member for Surrey North who has been very supportive of our criminal law agenda. Members will remember a number of occasions when she has posed questions to me during question period all related to getting tough on crime and sending out the right message. I thanked her on that day and I am pleased that she has joined with me again today. I know of her commitment in this area.

Since the day we made that announcement, we have had overwhelming support from attorneys general and solicitors general because they believe that Bill C-25 will help them cope with the growing number of accused who are awaiting sentencing while housed in their jails. They believe it will help them stem the tide of increased costs due to a growing demand, which is why the truth in sentencing bill is very important to them.

At a meeting of federal, provincial and territorial ministers held last September, my counterparts unanimously encouraged us to proceed with amendments similar to those seen in the truth and sentencing bill and they indicated that this was a top priority for them.

These are important reforms. Canadians have been waiting for a long time. Many say that offenders too often slip through the fingers of out justice system without serving adequate time. As a result, Canadians have been demanding change. They believe there must be more truth in sentencing and that the sentence one gets is the sentence one should serve. This approach set out in Bill C-25 would help restore the people's confidence in the criminal justice system. In the oft-repeated phrase, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

This approach is also more consistent with the situation found in other common-law countries where awarding a credit for pre-sentence custody is far less generous than in Canada. One concern expressed by some critics is that Bill C-25 is unfair because it does not adequately recognize the pre-sentence custody that often occurs in overcrowded institutions that lack opportunities for education and treatment. It is not our intention that accused persons be encouraged to remain in remand any longer than is absolutely necessary. Rather, it is our intention that accused persons proceed to trial with as little delay as possible and, if convicted and given a custodial sentence, that they may be sent to prisons that are not overcrowded and offer more opportunities for education and treatment.

In that regard, my department has been working closely with provinces, territories and members of the bench and the bar to identify practical and effective ways to improve the efficiency of the courts to ensure they are able to meet the challenges now confronting them.

The approach taken in the truth in sentencing bill should encourage good conduct by accused persons while on bail and should encourage them to seek an early trial where possible and where appropriate to enter an early guilty plea. Above all, it would lead to greater clarity across Canada regarding the relationship between the sentencing posed on an offender and the credit for pre-sentence custody.

These changes are long overdue but late is better than never. Time and time again, Canadians have said that they want a strong criminal justice system. They want us to move quickly and decisively to tackle violent crime.

Our government is committed to protecting Canada's citizens and making those streets safer. We will continue doing what Canadians expect and deserve and that is making laws that will keep our communities and streets safer. We promised to tackle crime and strengthen security when we formed the government and we have kept our word.

Since we took office, we have brought forward several key pieces of legislation, including the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which, among other things, signals an end to lenient penalties for those who commit serious or violent gun crimes. Our government has a long list of accomplishments in tackling crime over the last two years. We passed legislation to increase penalties for those convicted of street racing. We passed legislation that ends house arrest for serious personal injury and violent offences, including sexual assault.

As members know, we recently brought in reforms to address the problems of organized crime, Bill C-14, and introduced Bill C-15 to provide mandatory sentencing for serious drug offences. On March 31, we introduced in the Senate Bill S-4, the bill to protect Canadians against the rapidly increasing crime of identity theft.

We are proud of those changes. We are standing up for Canadians who have urged us to get tough on crime. Canadians across the country have told us that they want us to take action on crime and, with this legislation, we are delivering. We cannot do this job alone. I greatly appreciate the support I have received from my provincial and territorial counterparts but more is needed. I call on all members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate to expedite the passage of this bill, indeed all the bills that are part of our ambitious justice agenda. Canadians are watching this and this is what they expect. I hope all members will agree that this is what Canadians deserve.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister two or three brief questions. First of all, he knows that the champion of this measure in the House is of course the Bloc Québécois, which, since 2007, has been calling for such a measure to be introduced.

We will support this bill, since we have been calling for it since 2007, when the leader of the Bloc Québécois mandated me to propose justice measures to the caucus. This is the measure we proposed. The minister can therefore count on our support. Of course we hope the bill will pass quickly. We will examine this bill carefully in committee, since we agree that this is an important measure.

In his speech, the minister quoted a report. I would like him to give us a little more information. Was that the report on the parole system that was submitted to his predecessor? I did not really understand. I would like him to elaborate on that report and send me a copy, if possible.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look that up. This report was actually given to the former minister of public safety in 2007 and not to me. It outlined a number of the issues with the parole system in Canada. It pointed out a number of the shortcomings and a number of possible changes that could be made. Indeed, it is one of those issues that deserves the attention of all members of Parliament.

The hon. member said that his party would be looking at the bill carefully. I get a little nervous about that. I hope that is not code meaning that it will be a long time. The bill is actually very short but it is very direct and very clear.

I always try to be the optimist even after the last Parliament when it was difficult to get anything passed in the criminal justice area. Again, I am hoping this will have support and will move expeditiously through the committee process.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for bringing the bill forward. As he said, the attorneys general are very supportive of it. He knows that is why we pushed the government hard to bring forward this legislation. Our critic for justice has been pushing for this legislation and we are delighted to see it brought forward.

I would like to ask two quick questions. Regarding his gratuitous comment on legislation being delayed, if the legislation had been more appropriate and more consultation had been done, it would not have had the flaws which delayed it.

One of the reasons this provision was brought forward in the first place was that people were concerned about delay in sentencing. I wonder if the minister has any plans to deal with that problem, which initiated consideration of time served in sentencing in the first place. Is there any way to help out the provinces and the territories? Is he willing to share some resources? He mentioned that problem himself. I would be interested in any ideas he has of how that could be expedited.

A person from British Columbia wrote to me in regard to authorities using sentencing to get an accused to commit to a plea, just so they could continue with their trial because there were so many delays.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said we would have had more support if the legislation were more appropriate. I do not know about the problem he is talking about. If he is talking about our Tackling Violent Crime Act, where we send out the message that individuals who commit a serious gun crime will spend at least five years in a federal penitentiary and if they do not get the message the first time, they get seven years the next time, I think that is entirely appropriate. It was not easy to move forward on these, but Canadians are very supportive of it.

The hon. member would know that we have brought forward one bill already in the area of efficiencies. It is Bill C-13. What was interesting to me, in my discussions with my departmental officials, they indicated to me that this was the fourth attempt to get the bill through in 10 years. There were four different attempts. This is a bill for efficiencies.

If the members is pledging his support if we come forward with new measures to help respond to the challenges that are identified for us in the Code-LeSage report, for instance, I am delighted to hear that, but the provincial attorneys general are telling me that the absence of this bill is one of the reasons why their courts are clogged up.

Wally Oppal, whom I mentioned in my speech, indicated to me he knew of a case where an individual did not even apply for bail. He did not want bail because he wanted the credit for time served. If the hon. member thinks that does not clog up the courts, then we would disagree.

If the member agrees with us, we have to push these things forward. As has been indicated, it is not just the Conservative Party of Canada that is pushing this, but we have broad support from provincial and territorial attorneys general right across this country.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do welcome the bill, the wide range of support the minister has just commented on, and also the support from members opposite.

I am particularly pleased with the consultation the minister and his department have had with our attorneys general across the country and with police forces. I know this is very well received in my constituency and in the west. The bill addresses the need for more truth in sentencing. It is only common sense that those who commit crime should serve the sentences they are given.

I was disturbed with news over the weekend of an editorial supporting Bill C-25, published in the Windsor Star, which referenced a case where Tammie Steinhoff, a disturbed and brutal incident, stabbed and killed her own toddler son. She was sentenced to nine years, but because of the current system, she will only serve five years and ten months.

Some critics will argue that the bill is against the charter of rights and that it is cruel and unusual punishment. I think Canadians accept and want this change. I would like to ask the minister to comment on those critics who suggest that the legislation might not be compliant with the charter.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that all pieces of legislation that we table in the justice area, we look at very carefully to ensure that they comply with the charter as well as the Canadian Bill of Rights. We have an obligation to make sure that both those documents are compliant with all legislation, and I am satisfied that they are.

The hon. member was somewhat modest in saying that he gives credit to me and to the government for our consultations with provincial and territorial attorneys general. I want to thank members like him and members of my own caucus who have introduced private members' bills on this and have continuously stood up to have truth in sentencing.

I really appreciate the input and the support they have given, and I will never forget that. It has been a tremendous help in moving this forward.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup for a short question.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Hochelaga said, the Bloc supports the bill, since we have been calling for it for a very long time. We know that eliminating the possibility of counting time spent in custody as double time may add to pressure on the justice system. Is the minister prepared to take the necessary measures to ensure that once this clause comes into force, cases will be dealt with more expeditiously?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are proposing in the truth in sentencing act is precisely to deal with the question and the problem identified by the hon. member. Provincial attorneys general right, across the country, have been telling me this is one of the main reasons why the courts do get clogged up and that while there is such pressure on provincial detention centres, it is because there is not an incentive to have these matters move forward.

This is exactly what has been asked for. The person who is charged who wants his or her day in court, who wants to be fairly treated by the system, and who wants to have a reasonable system will no longer have any incentive for a delay in the disposition, or in the case of the example of the British Columbia attorney general the individual did not even want to get bail. These are the things that are clogging up the courts, and this is what the truth in sentencing act takes dead aim at.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his comments.

In his speech, the minister gave a good summary of the concerns of a number of provincial justice ministers. In the Liberal caucus, my colleagues have had an opportunity to meet with several of those ministers. Today, the Minister of Justice has acted on many of their comments and concerns.

I can say at the outset that Liberal colleagues in this House will be supporting this bill. Like others in this House, we have been encouraging the government to introduce it. We were pleased when the minister took the step of introducing Bill C-25.

My colleagues from British Columbia and other western provinces, principally my colleague from Vancouver South, the member for Wascana, and other members of our caucus from British Columbia, have been very sensitive to the difficulty that the two for one crediting of time in remand centres has created in terms of public confidence in the justice system.

The Liberal Party believes that an important part of fighting crime and increasing public safety is to give law enforcement officials and judicial officials the appropriate tools they need to not only catch criminals, to apprehend criminals, but also to prosecute crimes and impose appropriate sentences.

As I mentioned earlier, provincial attorneys general and premiers, particularly in western Canada but across the country, have been insisting that a measure like this be introduced for a number of years. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, were also in this House a number of times calling for these changes.

Our view is that there is a very broad consensus in the country, certainly not unanimous but a broad consensus, that greater transparency in the imposition of a sentence will lead to greater confidence in the justice system. Our belief is that this bill strikes the reasonable balance in ensuring that criminals serve their appropriate sentences and that public confidence in the sentencing process is increased, but also maintaining a degree of judicial discretion, which we have always thought was important, to deal with instances where there could be egregious circumstances in detention centres or unreasonable delays in coming to trial.

At the end of the day, we think that the judge presiding on a case is the best person to impose the appropriate sentence, that he or she is aware of all the evidence, of the facts. Often, cases are reported in the media and the public may not in fact have as complete an understanding as the presiding judge did if he or she sat not only on the trial but in the sentencing hearing as well.

We were pleased that the government left this measure of discretion in the hands of the court, but we are also pleased that judges will have an obligation to explain, in their decisions, why they decided to give extra credit, if in fact that is the decision made. The public will then understand. We have capped it at 1.5 days for every day served, but by requiring the court to explain the reasons for that increased credit, we believe it will have the effect of increasing public confidence in the justice system.

In his speech, the minister cited numerous examples where there are completely unacceptable delays in the judicial process. This has led to situations where detention centres are plainly overcrowded. In my province, New Brunswick, we hear troubling stories about detention centres in some jurisdictions that are very full and end up with an inmate population that exceeds what is reasonable for a place of that nature. Whatever action is taken, if it leads to a reduction in the number of people who are having to spend lengthy times in detention centres, we will consider that action appropriate.

When someone is charged with a criminal offence, the objective should be to have that person come to trial in an expeditious way. In various jurisdictions and provinces, there are all kinds of pressures on judicial resources in terms of crown prosecutors and police resources. This has led to a patchwork quilt across the country of delays in coming to trial. For an accused person, particularly for an accused person whose bail was denied, who was in fact remanded into custody pending a trial, we have an obligation to make sure that those delays are as modest as possible. We believe that the government should entertain a discussion with provincial ministers of justice around a better sharing of resources.

Some provinces have a greater capacity than others to provide resources to a criminal justice system. For example, in a large organized crime case in which a number of charges are laid, it is a complex case and it can put an enormous pressure on judicial resources, on those of crown prosecutors or police forces in smaller provinces like mine, New Brunswick. We would urge the government not only to think of this bill as a complete solution but as the beginning of a discussion with provincial governments of how all orders of government can better share the responsibility of funding an efficient but fair judicial system.

One of the concerns we have heard from those who oppose this legislation is that many of the centres where accused persons are remanded, the detention centres where they are held prior to a trial, assuming obviously they have been denied bail, do not offer adequate resources in terms of rehabilitation programs, addiction programs and educational programs. Often they are physically overcrowded and inadequate. In some provinces, like my own, where an accused person is remanded in a provincial detention centre, that is also the place where that person would be sent to serve a provincial sentence. In other words, not all provinces have different facilities where the accused person may be remanded pending a trial and a provincial penitentiary where the person would serve a provincial sentence of less than two years.

In Moncton, for example, and I will assume the accused person is a man because there are different facilities for women, if the person's bail is denied, or as the minister correctly said, in some cases he may choose to waive bail, the person would remain in a remand centre prior to his trial. That is exactly the same facility where he will return once a sentence is imposed, assuming it is a sentence of less than two years. That is one of the problems in looking at a uniform solution across the country. Different provincial jurisdictions have different challenges.

That is why we believe that this measure is an appropriate beginning, but we would urge the government to also look at other reasons that there can be delays in the justice system.

In his comments, the minister also raised the complex question of parole. Last week, I had an opportunity to visit a federal prison in my riding, in Dorchester, New Brunswick. There is a mental health unit in that federal prison, the Shepody Healing Centre. I met with the people in charge of those institutions. I learned a lot about the programming offered to inmates by the federal system, something that is in fact lacking in many situations where people are incarcerated in a provincial institution, at least in some provinces. They also talked about the importance of modernizing the parole system.

The concept of earned parole deserves close scrutiny. Public confidence in the judicial system and in the criminal justice system will be strengthened by a thoughtful and balanced review of our parole system. The public has the misconception that when somebody is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the person spends the duration of that time incarcerated in a custodial facility. The time has come for Canadians to hear from experts to understand all sides of this question and maybe look at modernizing and reforming the parole system and the concept of earned parole.

The objective of parole should be to encourage inmates and those who are sentenced to custodial facilities to take advantage of all the programs and opportunities available to rehabilitate themselves, whether it is a mental health challenge, an addiction challenge, or upgrading their education. If these people can be given the skills while they are in a federal correctional facility to improve their circumstances to deal with some of the issues which may have led to their criminal activity, when they walk out of those facilities, we will have safer communities. Part of that process requires a thoughtful review, perhaps by a committee of the House or in conjunction with a committee, to look at what we can do to strengthen that process in terms of increasing public confidence in the justice system.

In conclusion, we will be supporting this bill. We will work with our colleagues on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to ensure that the bill is examined expeditiously, responsibly and reasonably, but that enactment of this bill is not be delayed in any way. We believe there is a consensus across the country and that transparency in sentencing will enhance public confidence in the judicial system considerably. We have great confidence in Canada’s judges. Very highly qualified men and women have been appointed to the courts at all levels, and we believe it is important to preserve some discretion. This bill strikes that important balance in terms of clarifying the idea of reducing a sentence because of time spent in incarceration before trial. At the same time, we believe the time has come for the public to have a better understanding of a judge’s decision to reduce a sentence because of time spent in a detention centre.

We look forward to hearing from those who have views on the bill at committee, but as I said, our objective will be to pass this legislation expeditiously, to ensure that it passes all stages of the House in a way that is responsible but that proceeds quickly to adoption of the legislation. Then we can move on to other issues that are important to strengthen the justice system.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague across the way. He mentioned something about a committee to further look at something. I want to talk about some time that I spent with the hon. member on the justice committee in the second session of the 39th Parliament. I remember the day was March 11. Last spring the member and his colleagues, along with the Bloc Québécois, tabled a motion at justice committee that basically rendered that committee into a political stalemate where no legislation was discussed for the remainder of the spring.

The legislation that happened to be there was Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. That legislation was never talked about because of the railroading of that motion. Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act would have allowed for mandatory minimum prison sentences for people who deal drugs or who use guns in the commission of selling drugs. That motion railroaded Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (identity theft and related misconduct). Those are the kinds of bills that were waylaid.

Does the member honestly think that his born-again crime-fighting party, the Liberal Party of Canada, has any credibility left at all when it comes to saying the Liberals are actually going to get tough on crime? Why should Canadians trust the member and his party?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to some difficulties in the justice committee last spring which he claims led to a great delay in adopting government measures, which in fact may not have even been brought forward in this Parliament. The member could also add to that list, if he wanted to be complete in his explanation for possible delays, the fact that the Conservatives decided prematurely to call an election. They broke their own election legislation and decided to dissolve Parliament and call an election. The fact is when the Conservatives came back to the House of Commons, after that premature election in November, they delivered such a disastrous economic statement that entirely missed the concerns of Canadians, those who are losing their jobs and those who worry about the economy, that they were forced to run to the Governor General and beg her to prorogue Parliament so they could come back and push reset on their government.

When talking of the delays in adopting justice legislation, I would also mention that the former chair of the justice committee decided to run out of the meeting every time certain issues were discussed. That was a rather appalling performance by the former chair of the justice committee. I think the member may have missed that in the rather self-serving explanation that he offered for the delays.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been in the public domain and has received a lot of commentary.

One of the areas of discussion that always comes up on sentencing issues is whether or not judicial discretion is being limited inappropriately. One of the areas that I have worked on in the past and have expressed some concern about is where there is a mental disability or something like fetal alcohol syndrome, where rehabilitation is not possible. Those people should be getting the assistance they require.

I wonder if the member could advise the House whether or not there is a case such as that, or some other circumstance, which would make restricting the credit to only one day per day served inappropriate, given the circumstances of the particular convicted person.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, since his election to the House, the member for Mississauga South has done some important work on the very difficult issue of fetal alcohol syndrome. He has become one of the leading voices in the country on the issue. He knows a great deal about it. He does a great service to the country when he brings it up in this House and works on it in the rather effective way he does.

The member correctly noted the importance of not restricting unreasonably the discretion of a sentencing judge to consider all of the factors of the case. That is why when we decided to support Bill C-25, we did so pleased that the minister and the government had in fact preserved some aspect of judicial discretion, allowing a judge perhaps to go to one and a half days for every day served in custody, as long as the judge accepts his or her obligation to make that transparent.

No legislation would purport to specifically enumerate examples where a sentencing judge may choose to exercise that discretion. The member identified fetal alcohol syndrome and the difficulty in rehabilitation. I do not disagree whatsoever with his view that that may in fact be an appropriate circumstance for a judge to consider in sentencing.

What will happen, as a practical reality, is once this legislation is passed and then proclaimed, sentencing judges, when they decide to exercise that discretion and, for example, go to one and a half days for every day served, they will, by having to explain those reasons, develop a body of common law and jurisprudence across the country. This will then guide trial courts in the future, and ultimately courts of appeal and perhaps the Supreme Court of Canada will identify what are appropriate circumstances for that discretion. That process will take some time.

I have no doubt the issue the member identified will be one of those examples that the courts will want to consider.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Conservative Party mentioned the trouble in getting legislation through in a timely manner. The member for Beauséjour listed a whole bunch of reasons as to the problems with the legislation and how the Conservatives had delayed justice legislation. However, he missed the most substantive point, and that is the problems with the legislation. We heard witness after witness. It was not the justice department that was causing the problems. They were given direction to do bills, and they did not follow the normal protocol of consultation. We heard time and time again that—

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

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. The Conservative member is complaining about the other Conservative member who brought up this topic. I would not have been talking about it had the other member not brought up the historic discussion of other bills. I was following in the debate as started by a Conservative member.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure that is a point of order.

The hon. member for Yukon, very briefly.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with remand is that people do not have access to anger management programs or academic training.

Does the member think this is a flaw in the system? When the Crown remands these people, this is out of their control. These people have problems. Why do we not deal with them? That might reduce a lot of crime in society.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon makes a very worthy point. As I have indicated, one of the challenges is in the remand centres where accused persons are held prior to a trial. Many of them do not have any programming at all, or what programming they have is inadequate in terms of anger management, metal health services, addiction services and literacy upgrading or educational upgrading. Therein lies one of the solutions to the problem of public safety. In order to rehabilitate themselves, many of those who find themselves in the criminal justice system will require this kind of professional help from doctors, teachers and counsellors.

If provinces were able to provide some of these services, I think it would be difficult in a remand context. It is often equally difficult in a provincial penitentiary. Many of these facilities, with sentences of less than two years, also have inadequate programs. This is why I think the Government of Canada has an obligation to sit down with the provinces and discuss whether they can better share the burden of beginning the process of helping people turn their lives around and take advantage of the time they are in remand facilities, those who have been denied bail or who have decided to waive bail because they realize a bail hearing will not result in the granting of bail if the Crown were to object to their release. Because it is pre-sentencing custody, the obligation to impose programs on these people will be very limited, and that is one of the challenges.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Laskin continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague's statement. We all win as a society when people with criminal records who have had a run in with justice can quickly become eligible for programs, be it training, anger management or courses to develop self awareness and the ability to get along with people. I agree with that and acknowledge that the bill will help with it.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, just following up on that comment, would the member not agree with me that we should look at having these services during remand as well?

A lot of inmates I have talked to want these services. More than half the crimes that are committed in Canada are related to addictions. Whether they are guilty or not, their lack of literacy, their lack of education, their lack of anger management and their lack of addiction counselling make them more likely to offend and more likely to be a problem in society.

Does the member not think we should consider providing these services also during remand?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Yukon is generally a moderate person and not known for a lot of excess. I am not sure it is possible to contemplate a panoply of services for people in the pre-trial stage, when they are held in difficult conditions in remand. No doubt this would be the ideal, but I would need more information to make a definitive decision on this.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, often when legislation comes up we hear a lot of argument about why we should support a bill. It is always interesting to find out who is opposed to the bill and what we would say to their assertions about why a bill is not appropriate.

Professor Tim Quigley from the University of Saskatchewan writes that this bill will not make Canada safer. He says:

The denial of bail has nearly doubled over the last decade, to the point where many prisons are extremely overcrowded and have no space or resources to provide programs. The remand conditions in many Canadian prisons now violate the UN standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners.

Does the member have a comment with regard to Professor Quigley's statements?

In terms of the problem that we are trying to fix, this is only part of the solution. We really have to look at the conditions of our prisons. I do know that funding of prisons that are provincial institutions is such that the circumstances are much different than maybe most Canadians would understand.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that prison authorities at both the federal and provincial levels are looking for funding. I think, though, that some academics see things a little less in operational terms than do those who know the field. I remind the member that I was a member in this House in 1995 when young Daniel Desrochers was the victim of an attempted car bombing. I met quite a number of university professors who opposed the anti-gang legislation that I was promoting. There are times to listen to the academics, but there are times when their remarks should be viewed with respect but with a certain detachment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to hear the comments from the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I had understood that the NDP would support our government in trying to protect Canadians. He said that most Canadians did not understand pretrial custody. Essentially he is saying that Canadians are ignorant when it comes to the two-for-one and three-for-one debate.

Quite frankly, one of the reasons we have brought forward the bill is because Canadians do not understand why those who are in custody and are later convicted get two-for-one and three-for-one credit when they are eventually sentenced after trail.

Attorneys general and solicitors general across Canada have contacted our government and asked that we get this done. In fact, the attorney general and the solicitor general for British Columbia, my province, came to Ottawa specifically to plead with our government to get rid of two-for-one and three-for-one remand credits.

My question for the member for Windsor—Tecumseh is this. Can we expect the NDP to support the bill at committee and later at third reading? When can we expect him to stand up for Canadians and protect the safety and security of victims and those who are vulnerable in our society?

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

Mr. Speaker, he was misquoting me a bit. I said that the average Canadian citizen did not understand the conditions of our pre-trial custody and therefore had a very difficult time understanding why anybody would get two-for-one.

Yes, the attorneys general and solicitors general across the country have been lobbying the government to deal with the two-for-one situation. However, they have also been lobbying it, or maybe the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice, for additional resources to deal with the problems they have in the courtrooms. The delays are there. As I said in my speech, they are not just the result of the defence bar or the accused person; it is the system itself. There are not enough prosecutors, judges or court rooms.

In terms of his final point about when I will stand up for Canadians and protection, I have done that all my professional career. In fact, I did it even before I became a lawyer. I have no intention to stop doing that. Hopefully, with some reasonable amendments that would make the bill more useful, my party will ultimately support it. However, I want to be very clear to the House and the Canadian people that to portray the bill as the be-all and end-all of resolving this issue and the problem of two-for-one is to grossly mislead the Canadian public.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I complement the member for reminding Canadians of the horrible conditions that occur in remand on occasion and that hundreds if not thousands of these people under these conditions are innocent and ultimately not convicted.

I have two questions for the member.

First, does he think that being constricted from providing two-for-one could lead, in certain cases, to the judge putting a shorter sentence during the conviction to invoke justice? It would not have the desired effect.

Second, everyone has talked about how it would reduce remand because the defence and the person charged would stop manoeuvres to be in prison longer in remand. However, is there a possibility that the prosecutor, who was trying to get this person through the court system quickly so they would not have access to two-to-one, may no longer have the motivation and in some cases lead to a longer remand period?

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not follow the second part of the question. However, on the first part, I do not think there is any doubt that members of the judiciary, if they feel they cannot work within the terminology of circumstances justifying it, will look at reducing the amount of time that is given in the ultimate sentence if they feel that is the only just way.

In that regard, I want to make a point at which the member may have been driving. We have a parole system where people get out because of good behaviour and an automatic return. The vast majority of people do not serve more than two-thirds. However, that calculation goes back to this whole issue of people staying in pretrial custody so they can get two-for-one. If they do that and then get an ultimate sentence, that period of time they have spent in pre-trial custody is not taken into account when they calculate the one-third reduction.

Consider two individuals who have committed the same crime. One manages to get out on bail and one does not. The person who gets out on bail will be convicted and spend less time in custody overall than the person who has been in pretrial custody. That is the normal pattern. The argument that the two-for-one automatically gets people a shorter sentence is not accurate in the vast majority of cases. It is a matter of where they spend that time. The time people spend in pretrial custody is much worse than what they spend in our federal institutions.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that was a good additional point. The question is if the objective is to reduce remand, which as the member and the minister both mentioned as being more than half of the people in custody, and if the defence and the convicted person use less manoeuvres and tricks because there is no longer any gain, in theory this would speed things up and there would be fewer people in remand.

On the other side, the prosecutor, who was previously motivated to avoid the person getting out quickly because of the two-for-one, would now have no motivation to rush to get things through in good time to the trial period. This may be counterproductive to what the bill is intended to do and may actually extend the remand time in some cases.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is at all beyond the pale of that occurring, but I would see those as exceptional cases. My experience with prosecutors across the length and breadth of the country is they are very dedicated to obtaining and providing justice in a criminal justice system that is fair. I doubt we would see them taking advantage of that other than in exceptional cases.

The workload they are faced with makes it impossible for them to speed the process up. They have too many files on their hands. We need more prosecutors.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what does my hon. colleague mean by charter challenge? It was not quite clear to me when he referred to it in his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, the argument that would be brought forward under section 12 of the charter, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, would be that the pre-incarceration conditions were so bad that they amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and therefore the sentence has to take that into account or, as happened in Ontario under the Askov ruling of the early 1990s, the charge itself may be dismissed. That is a real risk.

We lost 40,000 to 50,000 cases in Ontario in the early 1990s because the backlog was so long. The consequences of a breach of charter is we would not even get to the sentencing process and the charges would be dismissed. A number of those charges in Ontario and across the country, because that ruling was followed across the country, were quite serious, some involving violent cases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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