Thank you. That isn't much time.
First of all, I want to quickly extend my warmest thanks to all of you for being here this evening.
Personally, I have been wondering, since 1966, what prompts people to commit a crime. I know that there are many different answers to that, but I don't believe fear of prison is the main answer, and that has been my conviction for a long time. I sincerely believe that we focus too much on prison in Canada. In any case, our incarceration rate is higher than the other countries we like to compare ourselves to. And yet, I am the one who initially tabled this bill, and I will explain why. I would like to have your agreement at the appropriate time.
We can compare ourselves to two countries. Every year, King's College in London measures the incarceration rate in 216 countries. Last year, Canada had 127 inmates per 100 000; in the U.S., whom we compare ourselves to, it was 743; for Russia, 582. Canada was ranked 123rd out of 216 countries. So, we are a little below the middle of the pack. Let's look at comparable countries. In New Zealand, the rate is 203; that is high. But let's look at the European countries: for France, the rate is 96; Germany, 88; Sweden, 78; Denmark, 71. In Japan, it is 62. The incarceration rate in Finland is even lower.
So, we could therefore place less emphasis on incarceration, although when you listen to the victims and public opinion in general, I believe we are all prepared to accept a system which is reasonable when we understand its rationale. And part of the rationale which the general public accepts is the fact that sentences are set by judges who are independent, educated and impartial, who sentence an accused after hearing from both parties and considering either extenuating or aggravating circumstances. Furthermore, I have not heard many victims complain about the sentences handed down by judges.
Indeed, I believe it is possible to convince judges to reduce incarceration and give them the means to do that effectively, if people believe in it. However, when a judge follows the process, hands down a sentence and that sentence is then divided by six, the public no longer understands.
With the support of my party, I introduced a bill in June of 2007 aimed at abolishing the almost automatic granting of early parole. Because, that is indeed what we're talking about here. I presented that plan in June of 2007, but the government did nothing. I then tabled a bill on September 14, 2009, proposing that this practice be abolished. The government responded by introducing another bill in October of 2009, but did not follow up on it. So, I again tabled a bill in 2010, but that was not enough to spur the government into action. When it witnessed the revolt against the judicial system, a perfectly understandable revolt against the way sentencing works — and much of the revolt in Quebec is led by victims — it began to react. It's really quite something to see government members attempting to take the credit for this change in attitude.
I hear your arguments to the effect that prison is expensive and is not always effective. I agree; I, personally, am convinced of that, but that is not what we're talking about here. We are talking about a practice whereby the sentence handed down by qualified judges, after hearing the parties, is almost automatically divided by six. What we are talking about is that quasi-automatic practice.
I expect to receive your support when we begin considering other government bills, such as the one intended to prevent violent and dangerous offenders from serving their sentence at home, and which is an insult to the judiciary. The fact is that judges do not have the right to hand down sentences to violent and dangerous offenders that can be served at home. Why are they introducing a bill to do something like that? It's an insult to the judiciary. Furthermore, it will unnecessarily cause a fluctuation in the incarceration rate. It will reduce the number of sentences served at home, even though this is a very common practice in European countries and one which has a beneficial effect on crime.
So, I expect to receive your support with respect to these other bills. However, in this case, you have to realize that we need the public to understand and approve of an incarceration rate comparable to the one in Japan or France, something that will happen provided that the public feels that justice is being done and there is a rationale behind the decisions that are being handed down. There is no such rationale behind the practice of almost automatically dividing the sentence by six, and that discredits our entire judicial system.
