Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The debates in this committee certainly represent the full spectrum of what one feels is proper for sentencing. On the one hand we have the amendment that seeks to get rid of mandatory minimum sentences completely. Witnesses Mr. Eggenberger and Mr. Page have said that these sentences are just the minimum, and they're probably not adequate. So we feel that the sentencing structure there strikes a compromise. It's proportionate and reasonable. For that reason I'll certainly not be voting for the motion.
It's interesting that somebody picked up on the issue of the sentencing provisions of this act being very similar to drinking and driving. One may wonder why someone would commit a repeat offence of drinking and driving. I guess you could say that alcoholism is an illness. But if somebody commits a repeat offence of desecrating a war memorial, you really have to wonder if they'd even charge them, or if they'd commit them under a lieutenant-governor's warrant. It's insanity.
I note that Professor Kaiser's specialty is psychiatry, so the blunt edge of the law doesn't necessarily have to be applied in the case of someone who repeatedly desecrates war memorials.