Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand what Mr. Goguen is saying. But one does not preclude the other. It doesn't remove anything from the bill. It adds something. I think it sends a message about the severity of the offences, which the bill's sponsor wants to do. In fact, all the witnesses we heard from are unanimous in that respect. Even those who favour prevention and education measures support this bill.
I would say this to him. You are right to question why it wouldn't include churches or other places, but all of that is provided for under subparagraph 718.2(a)(ii.1). The amendment wouldn't prevent that activity from being viewed as an aggravating circumstance, but it would certainly draw the judge's attention to the fact that it was done on the grounds of a school or community centre. I don't think you would want a six-month sentence. When it comes to recruiting gang members, everyone agrees that it's not so much a minimum penalty we're targeting as a severe one to eradicate this scourge.
Even if, today, we don't provide for all the places in which young people could be recruited in their natural surroundings, I don't want to get into using expressions such as “natural places where people congregate”, because that would be ridiculous. We know that subparagraph 718.2(a)(ii.1) exists. If it's obviously a school or a community centre, judges probably already take that into account. I even think judges do that now and take recruitment into account. All we would be doing is spelling it out more explicitly. That's perfectly in line with this whole approach. In other words, we're introducing some clarity around an existing Criminal Code provision and adding more severe elements.