Thank you.
Thank you very much for your work. This is a very important issue.
As you surely know, my colleague Irwin Cotler, who was Minister of Justice, introduced a similar bill. Ms. Mourani's bill adds new elements. This issue is a concern for us. We support this bill because it makes major changes.
However, we are concerned about two provisions. It is important to discuss them in order to find the best solution for everyone.
I'd like to touch on both of those.
One of them is concurrent sentencing versus consecutive sentencing. We all feel horrified by the kinds of abuse we've been hearing about. It's tempting to think we'll lock someone up and throw away the key, but as one of the members said earlier in the committee, the reality is there are other avenues, like plea bargaining and so on, that will take place that don't achieve that objective.
Mr. Wilks pointed out that if there's a mandatory 30-day suspension of your car, that will prevent you from driving drunk. But we're talking about a different scale. We're talking about 48 years. With respect, I think it diminishes and minimizes this discussion to use that kind of example in terms of deterrence.
There is another way of approaching the norm of concurrent sentencing, and that could be to legislate to reverse that norm, but without removing all discretion. For example, it could be wording like, “The courts shall apply a consecutive sentence unless it is deemed contrary to the interests of justice.”
Can you comment on the idea for the judge to have some ability to apply judgment in a situation where the judge may deem it is not in the interests of justice to apply a consecutive sentence?