Bill C25
Contrary to what Minister Nicholson is claiming, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has not gutted the Bill C-25 - the government is not being truthful about what the core amendment accomplishes.
The core principle of the bill is to set limits on the amount of credit that judges can give people for pre-trial custody. The committee has preserved that principle. But in response to testimony from many expert witnesses, the committee amended the bill to give judges slightly more leeway than the bill originally provided.
The reason for this is that time spent in remand is often harsher than time spent in regular custody. In addition, time spent in remand does not count towards parole eligibility, which means that people who are held in custody before conviction will actually spend more time in prison than others who have committed the same crime but were awarded bail.
Simply put, the committee amended the bill to provide a general rule that credit should be 1.5 days for each day spent in remand, but most importantly to allow a judge to decide whether to award less or, in exceptional cases, more credit up to a limit of 2 days credit for 1 day in remand. The judge is the person best placed to decide what sentence should be imposed and what credit (if any) should be granted
The Senate committee did its duty by amending this bill.
I hope I have clarified the “what” and “why” of the committee’s amendments to Bill C-25, and that the amendments absolutely preserve the principle of the original Bill.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:10 am
The problem is that based on past track records, judges are likely to automatically award 1.5 days credit, regardless of who is responsible for delays in bringing a case to trial, and will be more inclined to exercise discretion in awarding more rather than less credit for time spent in pre-trial custody. We have seen first hand the lenient approach taken by judges in B.C. on muyltiple gun possession charges, with evident impact on gang-related murders in Greater Vancouver. The measures passed by the House have strong public support that in this instance seem well-founded, & out here in B.C. we would appreciate your support to tighten up on the tendency to treat serious criminal offenders with the degree of leniency seen in the past.
October 9th, 2009 at 12:53 am
With respects sir, you are wrong on this issue. You know not of what you speak. One day in remand, while no holiday, is not akin to spending two days in jail. Further, the message the legislation was sending was the right one. To undermine it, albeit slightly, at this stage is irresponsible and runs contrary to the wishes of most Canadians- even lefties like me. Give your head a shake!
October 9th, 2009 at 12:56 am
I respectfully disagree with the statement, “The judge is the person best placed to decide what sentence should be imposed and what credit (if any) should be granted”
The accused has been denied bail by another judge due to primary, secondary etc grounds and considerations. If anything….the accused on being found guilty, should be considered only for 1 fo1 credit and possibly no credit at all.
I admit my bias however as I am currently witnessing some defence counsel manipulation of proceedings to earn double credit for remand time and as you know sir, the remand counts are at all time highs.
It is unfortunate that legislation has to be passed “to set limits on the amount of credit that judges can give people for pre-trial custody.”
It speaks to tendancy of the judiciary to seek out the lowest possible sentences when possible…..due to changes in sentencing principles of the CCC undertaken by successive governments of the day.
Finally, once again the question of validity of the Senate’s mandate of sober, second thought, is raised. The PM of the day appoints senators….usually of similar political ilk, the PM of tomorrow has to deal with a senate full of people that may oppose legislation for the wrong reasons.
ps- I do agree that your committe has not ‘gutted’ the legislation but the media presentation will certainly indicate otherwise. Good luck with that.
October 9th, 2009 at 1:31 am
Now I know why Canadians want an elected senate plus a limited term for senators.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Senator Campbell;
Do the what is in the public interest or get the blazes out of your high paid unelected position and come back down to earth.
October 9th, 2009 at 8:34 am
“The judge is the person best placed to decide what sentence should be imposed and what credit should be granted,”
No Larry - if a person is guilty they should not be rewarded with extra credit for time served pretrial. The only person who should be given something is the person who is found innocent and was unjustifiable detained. As for the guilty party - the determination of guilt only justifies the bail conditions set in place to protect the public while their guilt was determined. This pretrial time should not even count towards the sentence in cases of violent crimes - this should be the only discretion of the judge.
I say to you larry - the public are the best people to judge whether the senate should be allowed to continued to exist - and there is no room in a democracy for an unelected body in a legislative/governance role. You do not represent the people. you are a fraud. Go take your road show to Iran or some other dictatorship that pretends to be a democacy. You want to do something useful? Propose a voter recall mechanism so canadians have the ability to hold any elected office accountable. We should replace the senate with internet voting by the public. Electing delegates to represent ridings is an archaeic compromise that is no longer needed now that the logistics of giving every citizen an equal vote on every issue is now technically possible.
October 9th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Only a liberal, would wish or allow, that this kind of power be put in the hands of 0ne person…..and often times a liberal judge at that.
October 9th, 2009 at 8:55 am
The only issue clarified here is you and your ineffective/useless sector of governance as well as how out of touch with realty you and your legal beagles are. The ELECTED leaders of this country all supported this Bill now do the right thing and pass what the PEOPLES representatives has asked you to do.
I do hope that the time comes in my lifetime that you people have to be elected to your positions. How secure do you feel your election would be???!!!!
October 9th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Could you expand on your education level? All I can find is that you have a masters degree in Business Administration from City University. Which High School did you graduate from, in what year and what discipline? You used to be the Chief Coroner for the city of Vancouver, in which University did you study medicine in? And in what year?
Thanks for your response
October 9th, 2009 at 11:07 am
Mr. Senator,
With all due respect, you are not helping things here. I speak as an individual who looks after three homes for homeless youth aged 15-30) in Manitoba.
It is a common practice (and almost universally accepted) for the defense to remand all matters, by not collecting all the info, scheduling conflicts, new information etc, for approx half the time they expect the sentence to be, in anticipation of reducing the time served. This is discussed as a method of defense not rather than a byproduct of looking for equity. I have even seen the defense then call for the charges to be dropped because the matter had not been dealt with in a “timely fashion” by the court.
As far as your argument that those who receive bail have it easier, that simply does not wash. In general, those who do not receive bail are violent offenders (defendants) or individuals whom the court believes, based on past history and actions, will not respect the wishes of the court to return for trial and or sentencing.
The individuals I work with literally laugh at the justice system. They tell me there are so many loop holes that they are not worried and even if they do time, its a warm bed with three squares and video games. I am not suggesting that we run gulags but I want what is best for my people. When my people feel like they are getting away with criminal behavior, they focus on how to get away with more or how someone else got away with worse, not on taking responsibility for their actions and growing from there.
You are taking away my peoples right to be responsible for their actions and therefor their chance for development and growth. The actions you have taken (in your unelected position) do indeed gut the intention of the bill. My people need a consistent message of hope and development, that is not going to happen with this kind of thinking. Please rethink your position and look at it from a perspective different than your own.
Regards,
dean
October 9th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I find your views utterly offensive. How dare you go against the majority opinion expressed by Canadians, provinces and the House? I suppose being Liberal really does mean being arrogant.
October 9th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Besides, criminals mustn’t be coddled the way they have been. Criminals must be punished, and punished hard.
October 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
10/10 Provincial AG’s (all law-based professionals) ask that the law be changed to eliminate the 2:1 deal, and the senate then decides to go it’s own way.
How on earth can you do that? How on earth can you go against the wishes of the population and then claim you did “our” bidding?
October 9th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
This is why the senate should be elected.
October 10th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
To Summarize: I think what everyone is trying to say is that we need to get rid of Unelected Senators whooping it up on tax dollars, Soft hearted Judges that don’t know how to sentence anymore,Defense Lawyers that are too cagey and arrogant Liberals.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
As an American residing in Canada, it boggles my mind that the Senate would essentially ignore the opinions of every single provincial attorney general in Canada, especially in regard to a concept which could only ever benefit guilty parties. It’s nice to know the Senate here places such a high priority on protecting the rights of criminals.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:50 am
I am dissapointed with the liberal effort to undermine the work done by the government in power. Put your sword away and work together.
“Mr. Harper, your time is up!” … I rather see the liberal leaders time is nearly up!
October 13th, 2009 at 4:12 am
…I had made a comment here earlier…looks like a heavy moderation is in effect. What a wonderful DEMOCRATIC system we have…NOT!
I expect this post to be either removed or not approved yet again.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I am unhappy to see so many people worked up over this issue. It’s a politically motivated hack with very little overall significance. We have important problems and my fellow commenters are allowing themselves to be manipulated. This is not even our most significant justice problem.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
my past liberal vote is now a conservative vote.
October 14th, 2009 at 12:41 am
Assertions have been made that time in remand is no worse than federal institution time or that defence lawyers intentionally delay the court process, but these assertions are not backed by evidence. Look at the testimony given by researchers and lawyers (Crown and defence bar) at the House of Commons and Senate committee hearings. This testimony provides evidence that 2-1 credit for pre-trial custody exists for valid reasons. Until the provinces drastically change the conditions of their remand centres and changes are made to early release/parole laws, sentencing can only be fair and just if judges are given the discretion to give pre-trial credit that accounts for these problems.
I am an articling student. I understand the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the conditions of remand centres, and the processes of the court as well as the law of bail, parole, and early release. I thank Senator Campbell for supporting these amendments to Bill C-25. Partisan fighting and the desire to appear “tough on crime” in the House of Commons has diminished the members desire to examine the evidence and pass bills that are based on reality rather than rhetoric. Thank you for being the sober second thought the Senate was meant to be.
October 15th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
With Respect, our Justice system is a noble one and evoluted in time but there are always improvements for to be, because of time itself and evolution of Societies in a Free Democracy.
October 18th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Larry, your arrogant self satisfied smirk during the newcast last week gave you away. This is just another example of Liberal Senators playing childish political games and obstructing meanful legislation that the majority of the Canadian people as well as law enforcement agencies support. You have made me even more determined to do everthing in my power to ensure a Conservative majority during the next election, an elected Senate and hopefully the last of your ilk.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:26 pm
This lunatic patronage appointee begins by claiming that the Senate has not gutted C-25, the Truth in Sentencing Act, and then ends by describing exactly how they have gutted it.