Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon and address Bill C-262 put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia. I would also like to compliment the member for Sydney—Victoria for showing us the distinction between the sentences of two years less a day and two years and beyond.
I understand the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia has responded to the concerns of a judge in his riding and the need for trial judges to have input on probation orders. I compliment this member of the bench for coming forward with constructive comments.
In many cases it is true that trial judges have a detailed knowledge of a case that may not be accurately reflected at the time of probation. For reasons outlined by the hon. parliamentary secretaries, such traditional discretion concerning parole in all cases may be in conflict with the existing role of parole and other forms of release appropriate for federal offenders.
For reasons discussed by the hon. parliamentary secretaries, the government feels that Bill C-262 may contravene the fundamental purpose of probation which is not only to protect society but to facilitate the offender's successful reintegration into society. While in these cases of sentences over two years judges may not have influence, an important fact to keep in mind is that victims do. A balance has been struck between the rights of the victim and the rehabilitation of the offender by the ongoing involvement of the victims and the victims' families. They are the ones who should also influence probation decisions and conditions.
The conflict of Bill C-262 and the comprehensive range of releases has already been discussed by my colleagues. This discussion on Bill C-262 should be unnecessary in light of the far ranging reforms made to sentencing in Bill C-41 in the first session of the last parliament. Bill C-41 was a response to and a product of over 14 years of effort to achieve comprehensive reform in the sentencing process as part of the criminal justice system in Canada.
The need for reform in the sentencing process has long been recognized by judges, parliamentarians, lawyers and by Canadians themselves. For over a decade there have been calls for such a reform, a royal commission on the subject, the law reform commission, the Canadian Sentencing Commission which reported in 1987, and in 1988 an all-party committee of the House which had a comprehensive set of recommendations with respect to sentencing, conditional releases and corrections.
While many of those recommendations were reflected in the government's sentencing bill, my hon. colleagues opposite chose to reject the entire bill. Here they stand today asking for changes in sentencing that may well have been addressed in 1995. If this judicial problem existed at that time it would have been prudent of the member for Kootenay—Columbia to have meaningfully participated in a debate on the fundamentals of that bill rather than on the semantics.
Under the terms of that bill Canadians now have a say through parliament on the purpose and the principles of criminal sentencing for the first time. Previously, parliament's role in sentencing was limited to setting certain maximum levels of incarceration and rarely minimum levels rather than dealing with the policy objectives of the sentencing process.
Bill C-41 brought together a statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing, the rules governing procedure and the admissibility of evidence in the process, and the various sanctions the courts may impose to punish, to deter, to rehabilitate, all in a form that represented the collective view of parliament. The changes proposed then, unlike the one today, were broadly accepted by criminal justice professionals, the provinces and the territories.
The establishment of a statement of purposes and principles was endorsed by the Canadian Sentencing Commission, the justice committee of this House and the former law reform commission of Canada.
Through Bill C-41 parliament provided the course with clear guidelines. It effectively granted discretion to the judiciary. Parliament stressed the need to punish certain types of behaviour by clearly stating that the purpose of sentencing must be to denounce unlawful conduct, to deter offenders and other persons from committing crimes and to separate offenders from society where necessary. This provided judges from coast to coast to coast with much of the discretion to sentence according to the motivation and severity of the crime rather than being boxed in by the word of the law.
The statement of the purposes and principles of sentencing provided that a sentence must take into consideration the will to protect society, to assist in rehabilitating offenders in promoting their sense of responsibility, and to provide reparations for harm done to victims of the community. A general principle that ran throughout Bill C-41 was that jails should be reserved for those who should be there. Alternatives should be in place for those who commit offences but who do not need or merit incarceration.
What alternatives will be available? For the first time Bill C-41 introduced diversion for adult offenders. At the discretion of the investigating officers and the appropriate authorities, persons charged with minor offences, in particular for the first time, could be sent into a parallel stream away from the courtroom to be counselled or to be helped to overcome whatever problem led to the infraction. This government saw fit that judges have a great deal of discretion in determining whether alternative sentencing was appropriate. To date courts continue to have probation as an appropriate sanction in the cases that require it.
Bill C-41 was only one of the many initiatives in the area of criminal justice this government has implemented in order to provide a balance and a comprehensive approach to the challenge of crime in Canada. We have worked hard and long with the judicial community to form policy that addresses its unique considerations.
