Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We know that we are nearing the end of the time we are allowed by democracy to make ourselves heard on Bill C-10, and more specifically on the amendment to clause 39 of the bill. Before beginning to state my case on this subject, I would like to take the opportunity, because I may not have another chance to do it, to thank our people from the Legal and Legislative Affairs Division and the Social Affairs Division at the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of the Library of Parliament. This is not the first time I have sat on committees and had the chance to read the legislative summaries that I consider to be nonpartisan and that help members do their job. They are amazing sources of information, along with the various witnesses who appear before us. To put these people in context, I would like to quote something in the document dated October 15, 2011, that was provided to us. It concerns the issue of mandatory minimum sentences, clauses 39 to 41 of the bill. The people listening to us or who read us will be thinking this is sometimes very technical. There are in fact a few sentences here, and we are changing... For example, look at an amendment proposed by the NDP, which says:
That Bill C-10, in clause 39, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 22 with the following: in Schedule I, is guilty of an indictable
That is how the proposed amendment concludes. It is not very easy for people to understand.
It has to be understood that clause 39 of the bill amends paragraph 5(3)(a) of the CDSA. For those who are wondering what the CDSA is, it is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, that is, the part we are currently studying.
This is what the legislative summary of Bill C-10 says:
Clause 39 of Bill C-10 amends section 5(3)(a) of the CDSA to provide in certain circumstances for mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for the offence of trafficking in a substance included in Schedule I or in Schedule II if the amount of the Schedule II substance exceeds the amount for that substance set out in Schedule VII. There will be a minimum punishment of imprisonment for one year if certain aggravating factors apply: the offence was committed for a criminal organization, as that term is defined in section 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code (a group of three or more people whose purpose is to commit serious offences for material benefit); there was the use or threat of the use of violence in the commission of the offence; a weapon was carried, used or threatened to be used in the commission of the offence; or the offender had been convicted of a designated substance offence, or had served a term of imprisonment for such an offence, within the previous 10 years. A “designated substance offence” is defined in section 2 of the CDSA to mean any of the offences in sections 4 to 10 of the CDSA, except the offence of possession of a substance found...
Those notes also say:
Defining such places may prove to be difficult. The use of the terms “school ground, playground, public park or bathing area” in section 179(1)(b) as a restriction on the movements of those who may commit a sexual offence against a child was found to be overly broad and, therefore, a violation of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The minimum two-year punishment will also be imposed if the offender used the services of a person who is under 18 years of age, or involved such a person, in committing the offence or committed the offence in a prison, or on its grounds. The term “prison” is defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code to include a penitentiary, common jail, public or reformatory prison, lock-up, guardroom or other place in which persons who are charged with or convicted of offences are usually kept in custody.
I encourage people to read that document because it explains the bill clearly, and there are questions stated in the document that are very similar to what we have heard. We have heard them, but not at great length. Fortunately we have read the documents that all of the witnesses have submitted to us. There are people I would have liked to spend more time with to be able to ask them for a little more explanation about the documents we have read. Because we really are dealing with legal matters and it is not particularly easy to understand. We often talk about things relating to criminal law, and we also know that in that area, the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". There is a presumption of innocence.
Sometimes, we wonder whether it can still be imposed, or whether there will not be another attempt to try to abolish it. Sometimes, I wonder what kind of legal system we have.
I want to highlight a few points that the Barreau du Québec tried to demonstrate. It should be noted that the representatives of the Barreau had exactly five minutes for their presentation, after which they were interrupted. The representative of the Barreau said that it regretted [Translation] "the government's choice to undertake such a substantial legislative reorganization (over 200 clauses) by presenting an omnibus bill and, moreover, to pass those amendments within 100 days of the return of Parliament".
The people from the Barreau pointed out that [Translation] "there is no objective reason or situation that justifies this approach, particularly since this bill proposes a fundamental transformation of a number of statutes that comprise the legal framework of the criminal law and the treatment of offenders".
Although the bill is called the Safe Streets and Communities Act, after hearing the various witnesses who came to speak here, I have serious reservations about that. Once our work is done today, will we be reporting a bill to the House that will make our streets and communities safer? I have serious doubts about that.
The people from the Barreau continued:
[Translation] When the law requires that everyone who has committed certain offences be sentenced to imprisonment, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence, the specific characteristics of the persons who have committed the offence and the possibility of those persons being rehabilitated, there is a real possibility that these people will become further criminalized.
That is a serious statement. If the entire bill is based particularly on minimum sentences...