Bill C-25 has just cleared the House of Commons and is off to the House of Sober Second Thought. This bill would “limit the credit a judge may allow for any time spent in pre-sentencing custody in order to reduce the punishment to be imposed at sentencing, commonly called credit for time served.” It is known by its shorthand as the “two-for-one” bill because judges would often give a criminal two days credit for every day spent in jail before conviction. Some smart criminals (isn't that an oxymoron? – ed), knowing that they face certain conviction would take advantage of that by forgoing bail and delaying trial. Then, as soon as they knew they'd been in jail long enough, they'd plead guilty and get their lawyer to convince a judge to apply the two-for-one rule.
The Conservatives want to put an end to that and that's what C-25 does. But to hear Justice Minister Rob Nicholson tell it, those dastardly Liberals in the Senate want to “gut” the bill. Here's Nicholson outside the House of Commons today:
Nicholson: I'm urging Michael Ignatieff to show some leadership, to get the message to his Liberal Senators not to amend Bill C-25. The bill that we have will make the new rule one for one. Canadians have been telling us that this is what they want to see. I have the support of provincial Attorneys General, I got it through the House of Commons, the Liberal Senators are having a look at this today at 4:00 in clause by clause. They should leave it unamended because I believe that's what Canadians want.
But here's Liberal justice critic Dominic Leblanc. Seems to me, Liberal MPs are united with their Conservative colleagues on this one:
Leblanc: Mr. Ignatieff and I and the Liberal caucus have been very clear we support Bill C-25, the two-for-one remand bill, unamended. It wasn't amended in the House of Commons. We sent it to the Senate without amendments, having supported it, and we continue to support it. I'm told that there may be some amendments at a Senate Committee. We haven't seen the amendments yet. I think the committee meets later this evening. The full Senate will have to accept or reject those amendments ultimately. Mr. Ignatieff is not like Mr. Harper; he doesn't order caucus members around. The Senate has a role to play but I can be very clear that we don't believe the bill should be amended and if there are amendments proposed and they come back to the House of Commons my recommendation to the leader would be that we vote to remove those amendments.
Sounds like we Conservatives and Liberals, together finally and tough on crime!
David, I think you quit a little early on this story. Your colleague Bob Fife, who was actually at the Senate committee meeting, told Power Play viewers this afternoon that the senators had in fact “gutted” the bill.
Methinks my good friend Bob gives our senators too much credence. At the end of the day, if the House of Commons wants to get something one on this — as it does — it will get it done. All the Liberal senators did was give the Conservatives one more opportunity to take a shot at the Liberal leader and at the Senate. But at the end of the day, Liberals in the House of Commons will join with Conservatives, NDP and BQ MPs to make this bill pass the way it was supposed to .