Thank you, Monsieur Ménard.
I am not a legislative drafter, and I wouldn't propose to give language that I would ask the committee to take verbatim.
What I do know is that before a conditional sentence can be provided, there are listed conditions that are to be in place when conditional sentencing is appropriate. I think one of them needs to respond to the sentencing goals.
Right now, the focus is to simply ask the general question as to whether a conditional sentence would be consistent with general principles of sentencing.
What I'm suggesting is that the Criminal Code spell out when a conditional sentence would be consistent with general principles of sentencing by specifying that it would be appropriate only in cases where restoration or rehabilitation are the priority in those circumstances. This should be coupled with another provision that gives assistance to judges in identifying when they should give priority to rehabilitation and restorative justice sentences, in particular identifying presumptive areas where denunciation plays a significant role in the sentence. The lawyers would have to show why their case has some unique feature that makes it appropriate to have reference to a collaborative justice project or some other sentence that focuses on the needs of the offender.
There is a huge difference, as I said, in the range of offences and in the range of offenders. It would be unsafe to be too precise. If a judge understands that a sentence really must present deterrent and denunciatory impact, then they should think long and hard before giving a conditional sentence. There must be something particularly special in that case.