Debates of April 20th, 2009

Truth in Sentencing Act

[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.