Let me respond on behalf of the CCCDL. The reason we reject the bill outright as our opening premise is that the bill optically seems to be addressing a problem, but in reality it is not.
The most troubling part of this bill is this. We have judges in this country who are working hard. We ask them to use their discretion as the final arbiter in deciding whether someone should go to jail or not. If a judge decides someone should go to jail for five years or ten years, the judge can send them there, but if the judge decides that the disruption to that person and the community merits some other disposition, we have to trust them to impose that sentence, and if it's not right, it can be appealed.
We reject this bill because, with great respect to something Mr. Moore said, we don't live in a catch and release society. This is anecdotal. The chief can come in this morning and talk about anecdotal cases. When you want to change something, you use a catalyst, a bad case. But that's not how we change the law. That's why we reject this, because it hasn't been studied properly. It's being used.
Lastly, in relation to your question, sir, about what you say to these victims of violence, we deal with this every day; it breaks our heart, whether we're defence counsel or whatever we are. But this is not going to change domestic violence, and I'm sure you'll probably hear, before this is over, about the number of women who may be caught by this type of legislation.
If this were going to be the end of domestic violence, if we could magically find it, well, yes. But that's not what this bill is going to do. You're going to say to these people—what? We have a bill, and if we introduce this bill and get mandatory minimums, then we're going to solve domestic violence?
With great respect, you can't say that, and you would be letting them down if you did.