I don't think that there has to be an all-or-nothing choice between parliamentary democracies and judiocracies. I don't think one has to choose one or the other. I think that the appropriate balance is to set maximum sentences, and that Parliament should do that and should continue to do that. Certainly we've seen bills over the past few years, for example, even in the fraud provisions, that have upped maximum sentences from 10 years to 14 and so on. That is the right way for Parliament to send a message, and the Canadian Bar Association generally does not take issue with it because we do support the role of Parliament, which is not inconsistent with allowing for a broad range of judicial discretion within that range at the same time.
On December 7th, 2009. See this statement in context.