I found it interesting listening to what Professor Paciocco said. I agree with you, there is a fundamental principle. I have 25 years' experience in criminal law, and unfortunately for you, I was a defence lawyer. I did not work for the Crown, but I am able to understand the Conservative Party's position that justice is very often done only as far as the accused is concerned. Unfortunately, that is the way the Criminal Code was made.
I find this interesting because conditional sentencing is a very important issue. Surely you will agree with me that one of the fundamental principles is individualized sentencing, i.e., the individual to be sentenced by the court is a unique person and the sentence has to be determined based on the individual who is before the court. We agree on that principle. That is one of the main principles, and your brief does not question that.
However, I have a bit of difficulty understanding your text, but I really want to understand it, because it comes back to what was being said around the table today more or less. On page 10 of the French version, you talk about amending the Criminal Code. My colleague, the learned Réal Ménard, whom we hope to see called to the Barreau du Québec soon, says we should amend section 742 of the Criminal Code. I agree with you. I am trying to understand two paragraphs, but despite my 20 years of experience, roughly, I do not understand them.
Could you explain them to me? If I understand correctly, there would be conditions on the use of conditional sentencing in the Criminal Code, in section 742. I would like to understand what you are saying in the two paragraphs on the priorities and principles that you would like to see included in the Criminal Code to limit conditional sentencing. You have my full attention.