Justice Committee on May 6th, 2009

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Lemay, can you tell me one more time the connection between Internet hate messages and the Indian Act?

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

No, no; they are two different things.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

The translators may be wrong, but they did say the Indian Act, and I just wondered if you could please....

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

Mr. Chairman, Bill C-21 deals with the repeal of Section 67 of the Indian Act, which is going to be administered by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Also, again as part of the work it is doing, the Commission will be looking at what it can do to prevent hate propaganda from finding its way onto the Internet. Those are two completely separate issues, and in both cases, it needs…

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Fair enough. There were two things.

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

I need to know when the Commission will be receiving money. If money has been allocated in the budget, I did not see it. That is the reason for my question.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

We'll forward any information we can obtain on your behalf. It should be no problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

We are at the end of our time for this part of our meeting. As mentioned earlier, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) and the order of reference of Thursday, February 26, 2009, our committee is considering votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, and 50 under Justice in the main estimates of 2009-10.

Does the committee wish to deal with these all at once, or do you want to deal with them separately?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We can pass it on division. Can we pass it as a package?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Shall votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 50 under Justice, less the amount granted in interim supply, carry?

JUSTICE Department Vote 1--Operating expenditures..........$257,388,000 Vote 5--Grants and contributions..........$370,558,000 Canadian Human Rights Commission Vote 10--Program expenditures..........$18,478,000 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Vote 15--Program expenditures..........$4,027,000 Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Vote 20--Operating expenditures..........$7,504,000 Vote 25--Canadian Judicial Council–Operating expenditures..........$1,594,000 Courts Administration Service Vote 30--Program expenditures..........$4,953,000 Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Vote 35--Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions–Program expenditures..........$141,173,000 Supreme Court of Canada Vote 50 -- Program expenditures..........$21,038,000

(Votes 1 to 35 inclusive agreed to on division)

(Vote 50 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Shall I report the estimates to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

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

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

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

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll continue with questions. I'll begin with Mr. Norlock. You have five minutes.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Minister and officials, for coming here today, and specifically on this bill, which I can tell you is very important to my constituents.

It is so much so that on a recent call-in show on one of the radio stations, they had a gentleman there...I must admit I can't remember his name, but he does have some great knowledge in this area. I believe he was a lawyer, specifically a lawyer for victims and victims of crime. He related, of course, to the audience that not only is it in some cases two for one, but there are some cases where it was actually three for one, which is quite disturbing to most people.

Then of course we did some research, and we looked into Bill C-25 and what the opinion is of many of your counterparts and our counterparts provincially and people who were interested. I'm just going to read you a couple of quotes and then a couple of other items and then ask for your comment.

The first one is from Dr. Matt Logan, who is an RCMP expert on sex offences. He told this committee on April 30:

I took two years out of my career and went to jail as a psychologist for CSC, and I'll tell you that the two-for-one is a scam. The people who are pulling the two-for-ones are clogging the court system and just backing it up even further. So I was extremely gratified to see the two-for-one disappear.

The next is from the Honourable Cecil Clarke, the Minister of Justice for Nova Scotia:

This change would stop criminals attempting to manipulate the justice system by extending their time in pre-trial custody. Ultimately, this change will ensure that an individual serves the amount of time in a correctional institution appropriate to the crime that has been committed.

So, Minister, I know you know that the majority of Canadians are 100% behind this piece of legislation. I wonder if you might comment on some of your conversations with other justice ministers across this country and specifically with the people who really count: the people who brought us here, who elected us to come here, and specifically the victims of crime.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

I don't think there's any question about it, Mr. Norlock. I've heard it on a regular basis from victims' groups, victims, and individuals. I've seen it in editorials and I've heard it at round tables on crime. The people have great problems with this particular policy and they want it changed.

You mentioned a number of our provincial counterparts. I'm saying that there's as close to unanimity as you can get when you're dealing with that many people. This is a problem for them and they have urged us to come forward and make changes. We were pleased to do that.

It's interesting that on the day we announced this, we had four or five attorneys generals across Canada, I think, who wanted to be there with us when we made that announcement. That is how supportive they are. I mentioned in the earlier debate that Attorney General Wally Oppal of British Columbia was very pleased to stand with me when we made this announcement, because it is important. It is important to the attorneys general in their efforts to try to unclog the court system.

We talked about access to justice. If you're clogging up the courts with people who are continuously getting remands because, among other things, they are getting a bonus in their time served, we have to do something about it. As I indicated to you, if they are convicted and get into an institution, then you have the opportunity to provide them with programs to help them become rehabilitated so that they're not spending their time doing dead time and not getting the help they need.

Yes, I received quite a bit of favourable feedback on this. Again, I'm hoping that this is another one of these measures in our tough-on-crime agenda that your committee will move forward on. I encourage you and indeed all members to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you.

Before we continue, I want to assure everybody that each party will receive an opportunity to speak and ask a question. I'm proposing to go to the Liberals now and back to the Conservatives for two. Then we'll move on to the Bloc for one and then to Mr. Comartin. Then we'll go back to the Liberals.

Out of fairness, is that all right?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

We'll have our time too?

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Yes, but for Monsieur Lemay, I'm not sure.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

He's a nice person.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

I don't know. I can't guarantee that he'll get a chance.

We're going to go to Mr. Dosanjh. You have five minutes.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Minister, you indicated that as a result of this particular step or amendment, inmates would be able to get some treatment in the facilities. Have you or your department done an assessment of what provincial treatment facilities exist in provincial corrections, how much more money they are going to require to provide that treatment, and what it should be?

Have you done a similar assessment on federal corrections? What impact would this have in terms of more inmates coming into federal corrections? What programs and additional dollars are you proposing or have been set aside to deal with that impact?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Again, I don't have the budgets of the public safety minister before me.

What provincial attorneys general are telling me is that most of the people now held in provincial facilities are awaiting trial. They're not even convicted. I've even indicated to you that, yes, there will be more people in the federal facilities, but I've been assured by my colleague the Minister of Public Safety that the capacity is there, and again, the treatment programs that have been part of our correctional system for many years will continue, and we will work on those.

I don't have the budgets of the Correctional Service of Canada, as that's not my responsibility, except to say that I have assurances from the Minister of Public Safety that this will work very well. Again, I have complete support right across the country from the provincial attorneys general.