Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Spratt, I understand your concern about the negative aspects of mandatory minimum sentences. Even if they were no longer in place, I think judges would probably, in many cases, come to the same conclusion and there would be significant prison sentences, where the crimes warranted it. So the problem I have is not so much with this question of whether we should have minimum sentences, but rather with the message we are sending.
Would you agree with me, Mr. Spratt, that the justice system is like the backbone of society? It's what keeps people from killing each other. When we have a problem, we go to court and we ask a third party, the judge, to fix the problem.
People are concerned about the rise in gun violence. I am thinking in particular of Ms. Dunn's testimony earlier. She obviously has concerns about the abolition of mandatory minimum sentences. Some people have concerns that may be irrational and some may be rational, but there are concerns. If the lawyer's job is to plead and the judge's job is to decide, the legislator's job is to respond to the needs of the population. It is to reassure the population and to strengthen the confidence that the population has in the backbone of society, which is the judicial system.
Are you not concerned that by abolishing mandatory minimum sentences we are sending a message to the public that these crimes are not that important?
We're not talking about just any crimes. You yourself, earlier on, gave the example of murder, a crime for which we should even abolish mandatory minimum sentences, in your opinion. I was simply referring to the issue of firearms, when someone commits a crime using a firearm. These are things that I find unacceptable.
Again, aren't you afraid, Mr. Spratt, of the message this would send to the public and the effect it would have on people's confidence in our justice system?