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.