Justice Committee on Sept. 27th, 2012

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Since I only have one minute left, I am going to turn to the specific wording in the legislation.

The legislation mentions two examples of personal circumstances, namely health and the financial situation. Are examples often included without mentioning all the situations? Wouldn't judges have more tools if other personal circumstances were listed? For instance, if the crime is committed by the person in whose house the senior lives, that person's place of residence can become an aggravating factor. The place of residence or the fact of living with someone can have an impact. Would it not be appropriate to add more details to the personal situation? If not, why not?

[Matthias Villetorte]

There is always a danger with exhaustive lists. The more elements we list, the more we will think that it is exhaustive and are likely to limit ourselves to that list. We would certainly not want to leave some situations out.

You are right, it is not only about the health and financial situation, but those two personal circumstances, together with age in those cases, are the easiest to understand; they are the clearest. Of course, the list of examples provided in Bill C-36 is not exhaustive or restrictive, and other personal circumstances could be considered. There is nothing stopping that.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Is there a reason? You are saying that those are the easiest personal circumstances to understand and that is why they were included in the bill. However, a parliamentary committee that is currently dealing with palliative care and compassionate care says that training has to be given to judges and prosecutors so that they can really understand and apply that type of legislation. Awareness needs to be raised among members of the legal community in terms of the seriousness of abuse problems.

Why were those two examples chosen? Why were cases that are a little less clear not included so as to ensure that those interpreting the legislation keep them in mind?

[Matthias Villetorte]

The purpose of mentioning this aggravating circumstance in the Criminal Code is not to raise general awareness of the problem, but rather to make sure that people keep it in mind when determining a sentence. Some of the government programs that the minister mentioned seek to provide legal education to some players in the justice system. That is how education would be provided to a greater extent and it would be far more detailed than could be included in only one provision in the Criminal Code.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

That was much longer than a minute, but that's okay.

I'd like to thank the officials for being here today. It has certainly helped the committee. It is a small bill, but it's important that we get it right. We appreciate that.

This meeting is adjourned.