Justice committee  I know we're short on time, so I will be brief. Like you, I would like to see some evidence that these measures were actually effective. It would be nice to know that in all the states that have passed these laws they were actually doing something positive. But the evidence just isn't there.

Justice committee  If I might add on to that, I believe the researcher to whom you're referring is referred to in the Doob and Webster article that is cited in our materials. Doob and Webster spent about three pages explaining why Levitt's conclusions are inaccurate and misleading. Doob and Webster claim that he also ignores a large body of the evidence.

Justice committee  Yes. We do apologize for this.

Justice committee  In our brief we cite several of the studies: one that was already mentioned by my friend, by Doob and Webster; there's another one, Doob and Cesaroni; there are several by Julian Roberts. There are several that are cited in our brief as well. In addition, when this law was originally discussed, the Minister of Justice referred to four states in particular that had had mandatory minimums that had been successful.

Justice committee  Yes, if there's time; it's just to add to what Mr. Borovoy already said. First of all, please allow us to express our apologies. We did submit a brief, but as it was Monday we did not have time to have it translated. We do have copies, but they are in English only. I know that the clerk—

Justice committee  Yes, that study was done in the early eighties, and in that study only 9% of the trial judges indicated that mandatory minimums never affected their ability to impose a just sentence. So the converse of that would arguably be true, which is that 91% of judges felt that at least some of the time their ability to impose a just sentence was being affected by a mandatory minimum.

Justice committee  Yes, I would agree with that statement. When you look at the way the bill is drafted, such that you have a selection of different offences from which you can proceed, and the sentences vary according to whether it's a first offence, a second offence, and so on, then yes, you are going to have that opportunity to change how the sentencing would happen, based on how the Crown chooses to proceed.

Justice committee  For example, following the Campbell and Shirose decision, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was amended, and there are regulations pursuant to that act that allow police to break certain provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. That's a narrowly tailored, limited use of police legitimate law-breaking.

Justice committee  I certainly understand the concern about safety, and I do want to preface my comments with that. Our recommendation regarding the geographic location is...we would consider provincial designation sufficient. The reason we would want the province in which this took place is that if you read the legislation, it's the provincial ministers who designate the peace officers who are going to be doing this.

Justice committee  In our formulation of such an independent body, it would be independent from government and from the police, and this body would have access to police personnel, to police records, to all of the infrastructure of law enforcement, to conduct, as Mr. Swan pointed out, proactive independent audits.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  It would be accountable to the public. It would publicly report. The members of SIRC see everything, but not everything is put forward in SIRC reports. SIRC has the power, for security reasons, to keep information out, but the annual reports are made public so that the public can see--

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  That's our first position, yes.