Yes, of course.
Thank you very much, everybody, for being here today. I'm so sorry we have to cut this short, but as you know, life on the Hill is always unpredictable.
My first question is for Mr. Butt.
One part of the bill deals with consecutive sentences. From now on, the court should consider directing consecutive sentences if the offences stem from different events. The bill amends subsection 718.3(4) of the Criminal Code and refers to consecutive sentences. In fact, the bill amends only the wording of that subsection. I'm asking you because you have a legal background.
The Criminal Code states that:
(4) The court … may direct that the terms of imprisonment … be served consecutively, when (c) the accused is found guilty … of more than one offence, …
The bill states that:
(4) The court that sentences an accused shall consider directing: (a) that the term of imprisonment that it imposes be served consecutively to a sentence of imprisonment to which the accused is subject …
In the context of your practice, have you seen problems related to the wording of the current Criminal Code section? Did it need to be changed? What is the difference between these two wordings? What justifies the amendment to the Criminal Code if the court can already consider directing consecutive sentences? Why is it necessary to change this section? What are the problems? Perhaps you have heard your colleagues discussing it already.