Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Your position is definitely not without support in the bar across the country. I expressed one concern. I am not saying that your position is without support in various corners of the country.

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  There would be a difference of opinion between defence lawyers on any issue at any given time in this country. That's probably a given. But seriously, I understand what you're saying, and here's what I would ask you to think of. None of those people addressed for you the questi

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  You may be aware that a number of years ago there was a very different 515(10)(c) than the one we have now in the Criminal Code, and it was struck by the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called Morales because it did not pass the constitutional test. When it was replaced with th

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  If I may. I'm sure that communities are asking for legislation to make their communities safer. It's happening all over the country. The reality is that the statistics that are available do show that crime rates are dropping and that violent crime is going down. But I'm sure th

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  You have consensus on that.

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  As a general rule, it is extremely difficult to obtain bail when a crime has been committed with a firearm, yes.

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Yes, I certainly can.

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  It is the same case, I think.

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  No. I would not have answered if that had been the case. I have absolutely no connection to that case, but I am glad of that you brought up the question, because it is a case where a reverse onus exists in the Criminal Code. Because someone was killed, it is a murder. So reverse

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  As I understand it, he provided a good deal of evidence. But the answer to your question is found in Madam Justice McLachlan's comments in the Pearson decision. She set aside the reverse onus for drug trafficking because she feared an unjust result if it was too widely applied. T

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  What I would say would be the following. When we say that there's a de facto reverse onus going on, as Mr. Ménard pointed out, there are no statistics available to know if it's really as common as we think. So somebody like me, with 23 or 24 years, phones everybody I know in the

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I don't think the judges would say that they believe it's a breach of the person's charter rights because I believe in their heads they would be saying--if the statistics were being kept--that they were properly applying paragraphs 515(10)(a), (b), and (c). That's where I think t

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Right. But, to be logical, the constitutional right needs to be overturned. There would be so many equally serious offences that you would almost have to ask for a kind of amendment to the Charter. A number of offences that are more serious, or perceived as such by Canadians, ar

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  If it is the case, it is extremely sad. We have excellent judges in this country, who are also citizens who take very seriously their duty to ensure the safety of all Canadians. If you could see the work done day in and day out by judges in all jurisdictions, you would realize th

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The reason I focused on the vulnerability was precisely the same line of thinking. That is to say, the constitutional right is part of the law of the land, the constitutional right to reasonable bail, not to be deprived without just cause. It should not be able to be altered, lef