Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister, thank you for going over Bill C-36 with us. It is refreshing.
It's a good thing to finally have a bill on which I think we will all be working on the same page. Just that fact is good, believe me, and a good change of pace. It doesn't mean that it's always going to be like this—don't put your hopes too high—but at least on this one....
It's a paragraph that is added to the Criminal Code.
This additional paragraph is a very important concept, which says what it needs to say. The title, Protecting Canada's Seniors Act, implies a host of things. And it is only one section.
I believe you said that it is not a panacea in itself. I don't think that anyone around this table claims that it will fix all the problems facing our seniors here in Canada.
I would also like to acknowledge the outstanding work accomplished by my colleague Ms. Blanchette-Lamothe. I thank her for joining our committee for the study of Bill C-36. She does an amazing job for seniors. So I would like to welcome and thank Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe.
I have a question for you, Mr. Minister. Section 718.2 deals with the principles of sentencing. As an aside, I would just like to say that it is a relief not to have to talk about minimum sentences, but instead to talk about the fact that courts have to look at each case to determine the fairest sentence. The section reads as follows:
718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles: (a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, ...
Various items follow, among which subparagraph 718.2(a)(ii.1) that says:
(ii.1) evidence that the offender, in committing the offence, abused a person under the age of eighteen years ...
As a result, when it comes to the offence and aggravating or mitigating circumstances, age is a factor. The idea now is to add subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.1) that reads as follows:
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation ...
Why is there a distinction made for young people? It is directly referring to the aggravating or mitigating impact of age per se, but when it comes to seniors, there needs to be more evidence than just the age.
Is it because we are unable to establish what a senior is and the age when one becomes a senior? I am not sure. That is the only question that came to my mind as I was reading the proposed subparagraph. We are in fact still going to be required to be able to demonstrate a significant impact. We cannot walk out of this room and say that the simple fact of committing a criminal offence against a senior is an aggravating or mitigating circumstance. There has to have been an impact. Could you tell me why this choice has been made in this particular context?