Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank both of the witnesses for coming. In particular, Mr. Russomanno, not having more than a day to look at the section, you gave us a good practical practitioner's view of what happens in the courts.
I'll speak to Ms. Latimer first, if I may. As I mentioned at the outset, we had correspondence before the committee from the president of the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion who says that the membership is strongly in favour of recognizing the serious nature of the incidents—talking about vandalism on war memorials—and the consideration of the feelings and emotions expressed by Canadians, all Canadians, against such actions. She says:
We do however feel that the provision of appropriate penalties suitable to the individual particulars of an incident should reflect the nature of these acts and there should be latitude in assessing the gravity of the situation.
She goes on to say:
The punishment should fit the crime and although no incident of this nature can be condoned, there should be provision for restorative justice measures with a mandated dialogue between veterans groups and the offenders. There should be provision where offenders are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions, to repair the harm they have done by apologizing to a group of Veterans, or with community services. It provides help for the offender to avoid future offences and provides a greater understanding of the consequences of their actions.
I guess I could ask if you agree with that or not, but I would probably preface it by asking if you're concerned about the mandatory minimum, because it precludes what Mr. Russomanno was saying about having a conditional discharge or some other form of alternative sentencing provisions. Are we going to be able to do what the president of the Dominion Command suggests?