Madam Speaker, the Conservatives and Liberals seem to fighting over who gets to respond to an issue that has been raised. There is an expression in French for that, but I will not say it because I am not sure that it would be parliamentary. Let us just say that they both want to be more tough on crime than the other. The Conservatives introduced their Bill C‑242, while the Liberals introduced Bill C‑14, which will obviously be examined before the Conservative bill. Now, we just need to wait and see who will be the toughest on crime. That seems to be the expression of the day.
What exactly are we talking about here? Judges are not obliged to automatically release individuals who appear in court after having been charged with a crime. Judges use their discretion. Basically, they look at three things.
First, are they convinced that the individual before them will participate in the subsequent stages of their trial? If a judge thinks there is a high risk that the accused will not be present, then that person is kept in custody to ensure that they are.
Second, the judge will consider public safety. Is there a danger that, if this individual is not kept in custody, they will commit one or more crimes in the short or medium term, regardless of why? If the judge believes that releasing them would indeed be a danger to public safety, the accused will be kept in prison.
Third, the judge will consider whether releasing the accused will bring the administration of justice into disrepute. They will look at a number of issues with that in mind to determine how the average person would respond. Is the charge so serious that releasing this individual would cause public outrage? Is the charge serious? Are the events documented? For example, some crimes are caught on camera. Perhaps the individual can say that they are not guilty for such-and-such a reason but, if it truly is a serious crime, then the courts will certainly rule that, given the circumstances, this individual must remain in custody to keep the public peace.
Those are the three criteria that the courts currently apply. When someone commits a crime, they appear in court and the judge asks those three questions. If there are any concerns in these three areas, the individual will be kept in custody.
Bill C‑14 tells us many things, including the fact that there will be a reverse onus for certain crimes and charges. In the future, it will not be up to the Crown to prove that the individual will fail to appear, is dangerous or will bring the administration of justice into disrepute; it will be up to the accused to prove to the judges that there is no chance that they will fail to appear at the subsequent steps of their trial, that they are not a threat to public safety and that their release at this stage, as they await trial, will not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The bill keeps the same criteria, but adds a few more. It is true. For example, the bill adds that the judge must take into account the individual's criminal record and any crimes they were found guilty of in the past 10 years. However, the courts already took these criteria into account, even though they were not clearly set out in the Criminal Code. Does this add anything? I am not convinced it does.
The number of inmates in our prisons who are awaiting trial rose from 66% in 2018 to 72% in 2024. I am not making these numbers up; they are out there. That means that 72% of inmates, a big number, are in prison not because they were found guilty of a crime but because they are awaiting trial. The remaining 28% have been found guilty and are serving their sentence.
Do our courts release people automatically? These statistics lead us to believe that this is not the case. They suggest that judges are diligently exercising the discretion granted to them under the law. Does that mean that the release conditions should not be reviewed? I am not saying that. It certainly makes sense to look at everything and try to see if we can improve things.
Every time a repeat offender commits a crime, somebody always makes the following criticism, and rightly so: They may have been released too soon, or, they were not rehabilitated. That is a key issue. When someone is sentenced to prison for committing a crime, what happens in prison? Do we genuinely rehabilitate them? Personally, I believe in rehabilitation. I think we should strive to build a perfect society. Obviously, it will never be perfect, but I am saying that we should strive for that. We should ensure that all residents of this land behave in accordance with the societal rules we have set for ourselves and do not commit crimes. Of course, there will always be some who do. I am not that naive, although I may be at times. There will always be people who commit crimes, but I do not think we should throw in the towel. We should focus on rehabilitating all those who have already committed crimes.
The problem is that we cannot get there. We cannot do it because we do not have the budget. We do not have the resources. The provinces are responsible for the administration of justice, as we know, and they have to provide those resources to the prisons, but the provinces do not have the money. The money is in Ottawa. When we ask for transfers to Quebec and the provinces, whether for health, education or any other area, the same always happens: We always get the brush-off. The Bloc Québécois made six requests for the budget that is being tabled next week. The indications we have received so far lead us to believe that none of our requests will be granted. Does anyone think that is normal? I do not think that is normal. I think that the federal government has an obligation to meet the needs of the provinces. Our reflection on Bill C-14 on bail conditions inevitably leads us to ask the same question: Does the federal government transfer enough money to the provinces to enable them to fulfill their obligations with regard to inmate rehabilitation? I can say that in Quebec, that is not the case. I am also pretty sure that it is not the case anywhere in Canada.
Preventive detention is not a perfect solution. What does pre-trial detention mean? It means holding someone in custody before they are found guilty or not guilty. As we know, trials rarely occur within three months. They often take one or two years, if not longer. Say it takes a year, and someone is held for a year before their guilt or innocence is proven. After that year, if the court finds the accused not guilty, it means that they were kept in prison for a year even though they were innocent of the crime they were charged with. To me, that is serious. It means that, during that year, the individual in question had no choice but to associate with people charged or convicted of other crimes. Is that advisable? The answer is obvious.
However, let us say that after a year, the individual is found guilty. Then it may seem like detaining them was a good idea after all, because they were guilty. However, the time that this person spent in prison before being convicted will count as time served. It used to be counted as double time, but now it is counted as time and a half. If the prisoner spent a year in remand and was subsequently sentenced to five years, they would be considered to have served a year and a half already. In a way, it could be said that some accused persons stand to gain by being detained before their trial.
It is even better if the trial drags on a bit, because if someone serves two years, they will be credited for three. I am not saying it is bad to detain people preventively. That is good for public safety in particular. We certainly do not want to release someone into society and find out the next week that they have gone and killed someone else or committed a crime, serious or otherwise, because they were released pending trial. That would not be good news. The fact remains that this is not a perfect solution. There is no reason to believe that we can solve everything by putting people in prison before their trial. As I said, this could lead to even more serious problems than if those individuals had been released. It is important to study this carefully.
Bill C-14 proposes to bring back consecutive sentences for certain offences. However, the Supreme Court has already ruled that many of these sentences are unconstitutional. Are we not just setting ourselves up for another Supreme Court decision that will invalidate the work we are doing? That may be the case. When I hear about consecutive sentences, I see a red flag. This needs to be examined thoroughly.
It is the same thing with conditional sentences. I generally think that getting rid of conditional sentences for sexual assault is a good thing. We certainly do not want someone who has been accused of threatening to kill their spouse, for example, to carry out their threats a week later. In all cases, quite likely, or at least in many cases, the judge will determine that a conditional sentence is not appropriate. However, judges are not all dummies. I have good friends who are judges and who do a really great job. Judges already have the option of deciding whether to give an individual a conditional sentence. They are not required to give an inmate a conditional sentence. They will assess the case and decide whether it is better to send the inmate home with an electronic bracelet or something else, or whether it is better to keep them in prison.
Obviously, judges are not perfect. They are human and they make mistakes from time to time. However, I have to say that I do not hate the idea of allowing for human discretion when it comes to sentencing. It helps prevent some problems, although it can certainly create others. This week, there were media reports about an individual who triggered an alarm 93 times in the span of 66 days by coming too close to his ex-partner. He had been ordered to stay away from her. I am not sure how far away he was supposed to stay, but he violated the terms of his conditional sentence 93 times in 66 days. Obviously, he was charged and convicted. I think it was for contempt, but regardless of the conviction, he was being monitored and the problem was resolved. This is an example of a case where there was a major problem with a conditional sentence. We do not want that. We do not want people to take advantage of the the fact they have to wear an electronic bracelet to then further harass and intimidate the partner they had been convicted of abusing. That is a problem, and the other problems are also serious.
We have to weigh the pros and the cons. I admit that the more I read Bill C-14, the more questions I have. I understand the dynamic, though. The Conservatives introduced Bill C-242. Usually these crime issues are not as much of a priority to the Liberals. In any case, no one would accuse them of being tough on crime, as our Conservative friends like to say. Now the Liberals seem to be saying that they are jumping on the bandwagon and that they too will get tough on crime by proposing Bill C‑14. Between Bill C‑14 and Bill C‑242, which one is the best response to a situation that we are not sure we understand?
I gave the statistics on detention. We do not really have statistics on rehabilitation capacity. No real follow-up has been done. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, we asked some experts about this and they told us that it was a problem. Data is not being collected, so there are not enough statistics on rehabilitation and on what happens to inmates once they leave. This needs to be monitored more closely. Maybe we will need to study the bill in committee, hear from experts on the matter and come back with an improved Bill C-14.
Incidentally, I wish Bill C‑14 had been split. The bill amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Criminal Code. In my view, that may not be wise. There are some questionable aspects to that. I discussed this with some criminal lawyers who work with young people, and they said this is a catch-all bill that needs a lot of cleaning up. Would it have been better to deal with them separately? As is so often the case, the Liberals have introduced a bill that puts all our eggs in one basket. We will have to sort this out in committee, which is unfortunate. That said, we will do it if we have to.
At the end of the day, the Liberals are saying that Bill C‑14 is the cornerstone of their tough-on-crime approach. If that is so, I will pass on seeing the rest, because this bill is pretty weak. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps, after working on it in committee, we can improve it enough to make it acceptable, but it is not going to be a game-changer in fighting crime.
What is the government doing about criminal organizations? I introduced a bill to crack down on criminal organizations three times. Each time, I received an incredibly tepid response from our colleagues in the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. I proposed creating a registry of criminal organizations so that we could identify them and impose sanctions against them. Are the emblems that street gang members wear to intimidate the public acceptable in this country? I am not sure. Are we okay with gangs recruiting young people to commit crimes on the assumption that they will get a lighter sentence than an adult? The answer is no.
What are our Liberal colleagues waiting for? They are the government and they need to tackle these problems, which dominate the headlines week after week. People are likely more concerned and stressed about those issues than they are about the fate of Bill C‑14. I think we need to look at the issue of young people, criminal organizations and intimidation by criminal organizations.
This summer, criminal organizations were selling T-shirts and ball caps to young people in order to fund criminal activities. These items of clothing bore the famous slogan “Support 81”. The eight and the one represent the letters H and A for Hells Angels, respectively, so it means “Support Hells Angels.” I am not sure that a 12-year-old boy who goes to school wearing a T-shirt that says “Support Hells Angels” knows what that means. I am not sure that his parents, who bought him the T-shirt, knew what it meant. We have to tackle this; it is our job.
The Criminal Code falls under federal jurisdiction; it is our job to keep it current. Regrettably, we have failed in that regard. The cornerstone of the government's tough-on-crime approach is a bill that is like some sort of a sales pitch or a way to up the ante on what the Conservatives are proposing. The bottom line is that an individual's release conditions will be essentially the same as they are right now. Again, it will be up to the judge to decide what is appropriate.
I hope that the bill will be studied in committee. I would like it to be split but I understand that this will not be the case. There is work to be done on Bill C‑14 in order to make it acceptable and useful.
