With respect to consecutive sentences, I did listen closely to my colleague Mr. Cotler's speech. I must say that I'm still having some difficulties understanding what problem may arise with respect to judicial independence. I called for additional research to be done to make sure I was not mistaken. I would like to tell you about Mr. Dadour's philosophy, put forward in 2007. I could send Mr. Cotler information to that effect, but I am sure that he must already have it. In fact he refers to two cases that are before the Supreme Court on the issue of consecutive sentences.
There is the issue of totality. Let me give you an example. Let's imagine that someone is charged with trafficking, procuring and aggravated assault and is found guilty. Let's assume the judge imposes a three year sentence for trafficking, two years for procuring and two years for aggravated assault. If it were a concurrent sentence, it would amount to three years. If these were consecutive sentences, he could hand down exactly the same sentences. Nothing is preventing him from handing down those sentences. He has all the latitude required to do so. By virtue of the principle of totality, he will do mathematical calculations. If at the end of the day he wants to hand down a seven-year sentence or a five-year sentence, he will do the calculations in order to arrive at a five- or seven-year sentence overall.
I can get back to what my colleague was saying. He was concerned that there may be a danger of limiting judicial discretion. As far as I am concerned, that is not the case because this is not a mandatory minimum sentence. In his book, Mr. Dadour states that “the legislator provides...”. Indeed, the Criminal Code already contains consecutive sentences. They are related to offences such as the use of a firearm, terrorism, possession and manufacturing of explosive substances. You see what I mean. There are five of these offences in the Criminal Code. He clearly states that the principle of totality is also a logical outcome of the principle of proportionality. The judge is therefore not only independent in his decision-making, but he will also take into consideration this principle of totality which is directly related to the principle of proportionality of the offence and sentence.