Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hoback, you said that everyone has a story that is connected to a tragedy from drunk driving. Mine is about Kristen Cameron. Kristen Cameron was a neighbour of mine who was a very promising young hockey player. She went to the U.S. on a hockey scholarship, had tremendous success, and was actually an All-American. She was rendered a quadriplegic by a drunk driver.
I absolutely agree with what your intentions are, but I'm not convinced that the answer to every problem that tugs at our heartstrings is mandatory minimum sentences. I guess that's where we differ, although I don't for a minute doubt the sincerity of your intentions.
However, I want to start with a more practical problem. I'm not sure how many people here, as well as you, have had an opportunity to speak to those who try these cases: prosecutors and defence counsel. What you would find if you were to do that is that even under the law as it presently exists, a practice has grown up, through jurisprudence, or through professional courtesy, or through some other protocol, whereby the prosecution will notify the defence if they intend to rely on subparagraph 255(1)(a)(ii). That's the section that has a minimum of 30 days for a second offence.
If they're going to rely on that, they notify the other side. It's quite routine. When they don't notify the other side, they proceed with their submissions on sentencing, and somebody with a second offence will get a penalty of less than 30 days, more or less by agreement.
My first question is, are you aware that the practice exists within the criminal courts in Canada? My second question is, have you have considered that practice in your bill? My concern is that if that is the practice presently used to get around a minimum today, your bill will be rendered ineffectual if that continues once the code is amended.