At some point, to comment on Bill C-215 in its entirety--and this is a point that's likely appropriate to make--if you reflect back, starting originally with Mr. Daubney from the Department of Justice, the Canadian Bar Association, last Thursday's witnesses, representatives of other NGOs active in criminal justice, the Canadian Council on Criminal Defence Lawyers, and Professor Kent Roach, one of the leading scholars in Canada on charter issues, I think we have heard that this whole bill, really, raises serious constitutional concerns.
Although this amendment that's being put forward, amendment 1, is attempting to deal with this, I don't think it comes even close. Even Steve Sullivan, who is president of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime, agreed that there was credence to the concerns raised by the Department of Justice about the numbers in the bill—that is, numbers speaking to the amount of time one would get—and as to whether they would be constitutional.
Other witnesses have found that the bill as tabled contravenes section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I don't believe the amendment that has been proposed here, once again, is bringing us close to where we should be in terms of charter compliance.
If we go forward, and Bill C-215 were ever to become enforced--by some fluke, I suppose, based on today's situation--in its present form, it would clearly be subject to a charter challenge. I don't believe any of the amendments that have been presented today would get us to the point where we could save this bill.
The Supreme Court did strike down the seven-year mandatory minimum penalty for drug importation—that was trafficking in R. v. Smith—but upheld the four-year minimum in R. v. Morrisey for criminal negligence causing death. Again, I think the whole concept here is that you have to manoeuvre all of the penalty provisions that are proposed into the limited room to manoeuvre, I guess you would say, as seen by our justice system. Clearly, to have this viable, we have to work within that context.
I've asked justice department officials to examine and look at these amendments that were being proposed, and in their opinion, we couldn't find any that would in effect deal with these serious charter flaws that the bill reflected. Almost all of them would have had the effect of raising the mandatory minimum penalty to at least ten years, and in some circumstances we don't think that could have been sustained under the charter.
No amendment proposes to eliminate clause 2, which has the five-, ten-, and fifteen-year consecutive mandatory minimum penalties for murder. Murder already carries a mandatory minimum of life imprisonment, so one can't really, in all fairness and candour, attach an additional mandatory minimum on top of life. I think that brings us into not only disrepute but ridicule. In addition to the charter flaws that are in this, the entire approach of the bill is problematic in that it's not really sound in criminal policy and sentencing policy.
Each and every one of us feels, and I mentioned this the other day, that in fact this bill has helped us focus on a very important issue. It is an issue that deserves study and a response. But I respectfully submit that this response, even with the amendments, is not the response that will be able to deal with the issues in a constructive way. Rather, we would be sort of putting ourselves in a position where the bill would simply be a key to open a charter challenge, and likely a successful charter challenge.
I just want to put it on the record that although we're very appreciative, from my perspective, of the bill being here to help us go forward with the debate, in the end I don't think it would have been helpful. As I say, it's doubtful it will ever go before the House again, but had it gone forward, I certainly would have had some serious concerns.
I just thought I should put on the record today the principle that we're driving and striving to achieve, and that is to deal with those who have guns and who are involved in gang activities and violence within our communities. It absolutely needs to be denounced, but this denunciation goes way beyond the ability to be effective; therefore, I think it loses its ultimate goal.
So I thank the member for bringing it forward, but I believe this is where it should likely end.