Evidence of meeting #17 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offences.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Réal Ménard
No, you had 9 minutes and 20 seconds on the first round. In any case, go ahead and ask a very short question.
September 28th, 2006 / 5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Sue Barnes Liberal London West, ON
To follow that up, one of the things that would help alleviate the situation is if, instead of being an absolute, it was a presumption, a presumption against this.... And the way it was phrased in Bill C-70 was unless the judge put in writing. In other words, you can't get a conditional sentence for these listed offences. They had things like organized crime and terrorism offences. They were just there. But there was another section that said if there were exceptional circumstances the judge could put on the record reasons for giving one.
That was designed, I believe, to allow for that unusual situation, that variable situation, not the everyday. It is a presumption for, but there wasn't an alternate way for a judge's discretion.
I would like to hear from the police chiefs on that.
5:30 p.m.
Deputy Chief, Central Saanich Police Service, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police
First, with respect to the possible anomalous result of more suspended sentences, etc., I could envision that. The only thing I'd say to that is we can only slay one dragon at a time.
With respect to the second part of your question, I think that really ultimately goes to our point about complexity and vagueness, and perhaps presumptions and exceptions to the rule that follows the rule we suggest adds to the complexity.
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Réal Ménard
Thank you, Ms. Barnes.
Are there any other comments?
I want to thank our guests for being with us and sharing that information. The next meeting will take place on Monday at 3:30 p.m.
The meeting is adjourned.