Thank you.
I would like to add a few things because we are just at the beginning. We are going to start the comprehensive study and clause-by-clause consideration of the omnibus bill that amends nine of our country's fundamental pieces of legislation. There are still a lot of questions about the form and content of this omnibus bill.
I don't want to go back over all the points raised by my colleague Mr. Harris before the committee regarding the amendment. But if we can only make one change, this is the one. In terms of principle, as a legal practitioner, as a member of the Quebec Bar and as a lawyer with over 25 years of experience—without giving my age away—I know that this amendment could still give people some peace of mind. People who, like myself, care about the legal side of things will have some peace of mind, even though it will not dispel all our deep concerns about the omnibus bill.
We have to remember that we are legislators and that the decisions that we will be making here today will have a huge impact on concrete and specific matters in the future. Lawyers on all sides will try to find the smallest loophole somewhere. The lawyers around the table or in this room know exactly what I am talking about.
I wouldn't want to see someone be able to slip through the cracks of the system because of an error on a legislator's part. The type of amendment that the NDP is proposing and that we are going to keep seeing at the various stages of the study of the omnibus bill does not change the content of the bill in any way whatsoever. In my opinion, the amendment is perfectly in order. It simply provides some assurance, although, as Mr. Jean said, it could be done through a motion at any stage. As Mr. Harris said, it is so much stronger if it is in the bill, if it is passed by Parliament, then by the Senate, and if it finally becomes law. We do in fact hope that, within three years after this bill comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this act will be undertaken by a committee of the House of Commons or a joint committee designated by Parliament. The review would include a cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of this bill that incorporates the costs to the federal government and, to the extent possible, the costs to provincial and territorial governments.
We all know that a great deal of concern has been expressed by the legal community, be it the Canadian Bar Association or the Quebec Bar. Their representatives came to share various points with us which should have made us think this reform through seriously. In its latest November 2011 issue of the Journal du Barreau du Québec, the Quebec Bar said that Bill C-10 is not a legally justifiable reform. And that comes from lawyers who work on all sides. So we are not just talking about defence lawyers, but also about crown prosecutors and everyone involved in the justice system.
The Quebec Bar believes that, by imposing a number of mandatory minimums, Bill C-10 will simply send to jail people who could be rehabilitated and who should not be behind bars. That was the criticism made before this committee by Mr. Battista, the chair of the criminal law committee of the Quebec Bar. He is actually the expert appointed by the Quebec Bar to evaluate and analyze those types of matters. He tells us that the Harper government's omnibus bill is causing concern for a number of criminal lawyers. Once again, let me say that this does not only concern criminal lawyers and defence lawyers, but also crown prosecutors. We are told that the new measures to toughen up sentences for drug traffickers, sexual predators and violent young offenders include a whole host of provisions meant to radically change Canadian criminal law, and we are not even able to have an in-depth debate.
This is one of my concerns. It is very important to adopt the type of amendment we are introducing this morning. I was just elected in this 41st Parliament, whether those who have heard from witnesses at committee meetings in previous Parliaments like it or not. That is not our case—I am talking about the three members on this side of the table. We were not there. You may say that it is our problem, but it is the problem of Canadian taxpayers who chose to elect us and who sent us to do a very important job here. We are here to make sure that the legislation being passed works and that the goals of the bill can be reached.
We were told that, legally, this reform was not needed and that it was more a question of an ideological approach that was not based on findings, facts and studies on the subject. That is what we have heard the small number of witnesses say during the short time we had to ask them questions. I would have liked to be able to ask some of them more questions. As Mr. Harris said, we are in favour of some parts of this omnibus bill. When a majority on both sides of the House is in agreement, I think that those parts should be taken out and passed as soon as possible, in order to make sure that they are in effect right away. That means that both sides of the House have done an in-depth analysis and have concluded that those parts of the legislation should not pose any problems. However, that is not the case for all the parts.
In the case of people without a criminal record, meaning people who have not offended previously, Mr. Battista wonders about the risk of imprisonment. This is what the latest edition of Journal du Barreau du Québec says:
In a number of cases, judges currently have the discretion to determine the sentence of an accused found guilty and not to send the accused to prison if they determine that other options are more appropriate.
But this whole concept is being changed, although, with the exception of a few cases, it works very well in Quebec, as far as I am told. I don't think it is worth changing a whole system for a few small cases. We should find a way to solve the actual problem instead of throwing it all out the window and pretend like it never existed.
There is also the whole issue of record suspensions or pardons, which will be more difficult to obtain under this legislation. We want those people to serve their sentences, but once they have paid their debt to society, not only will sentences increase, but we are also going to make sure that they are not going to be rehabilitated right away and that we are not going to help them to reintegrate into society very quickly. This makes me concerned about the future.
So we are talking about some fundamental changes. As I have been saying throughout the process, I have concerns about potential recourse to courts and court challenges. The article goes on to say:
According to Mr. Battista, court challenges are definitely going to increase, simply because the negative effect of minimum sentences—especially when they are significant—leaves the accused without any real choice. “More trials and challenges are likely to take place whereas many of them could have been avoided through negotiations. It is also safe to assume that there will be constitutional attacks on some provisions that leave judges with no way out.”
The type of system that we are in the process of adopting under Bill C-10 is being reviewed in a number of places in the world, including the U.S. and the U.K., because the costs associated with the prison system were not seen to be proportionate to the intended objectives of reducing crime. I would change the so-called Safe Streets and Communities Act to “unsafe”, because this type of concept, this type of omnibus bill, causes great legal turmoil.
I am not giving you a political speech; it is a legal speech. As a lawyer and member for Gatineau, I am truly concerned to see what is being done with a system that works rather well. I think you have already conducted studies on the three of nine pieces of legislation included in this omnibus bill. Amendments have been introduced and suggestions have been made by the many experts who have appeared before your committees, but practically nothing has been retained by the government. There is something fundamentally wrong with this whole rushed process, which does not reflect the work that we have to do as politicians and that we have to accomplish for our fellow citizens.
If we can at least pass the proposed amendment to clause 2, we have reason to hope that, in three years, the system will not be turned upside down too much. I don’t want to be a prophet of doom, but I feel that a lot of people will be going to court, perhaps at several levels. There will be charter challenges, there will be much more negotiation between the crown and the defence, and, when you get right down to it, that will not do victims any good. I have heard their heartfelt testimony, but, unfortunately, I have studied the bill in vain for anything that will benefit the victims who came to speak to the committee.
If they are serious, if they really want to change the system, if that is what the Conservative government sincerely wants, our proposed amendment should cause them no concern because it makes a helpful suggestion that would respect the spirit of the legislation as amended.