I am accepting a challenge here. I am going to take advantage of the fact that I have the opportunity to speak to several lawyers at once here, and of the fact that this may be the first and last time where I will be able to do so without charge. That was a little joke, to start. I should add that I am also flanked by two lawyers
My first question is for the Canadian Bar Association representatives.
In part V of your brief on Bill C-32, you talk about the victim impact statement form, considered in sentencing. You propose that certain parts of that form be withdrawn, those that would allow the victim to express in writing the type of sentence they would like to see handed down to the accused.
I would like to hear your rationale for that. You say it is redundant, but would it not allow the judge to explain certain aspects of the system to the victim? For instance, if victims ask for a certain sentence, the judge could tell them that he understands, but that jurisprudence has to be taken into account. He could provide examples and explanations.
Aside from the redundancy issue, what was your reasoning on this?