Evidence of meeting #108 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
We're not talking about mandatory minimums here. We're talking about maximum sentences.
These hybridized offences have a maximum sentence, but the act of hybridizing them allows the prosecution to choose a summary route rather than an indictable route.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Right, but if you as a criminal know that you might end up with a choice in how you're going to be prosecuted—there might be various reasons—I think that particular element of the law would serve as less of a deterrent than when you know there's no choice and you face a particular potential maximum penalty.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
The defendant does not have a choice. It's a choice of the prosecution.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Right, but the offender realizes that the prosecution has that choice. That, I think, has an impact on the incentive structure that offenders use, and we do have research to that effect.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
We're out of time on Mr. McKinnon's round, but if you have something short to add, Ms. Wiebe, go ahead.
Executive Director, Manitoba Organization for Victim Assistance
I would just like to add that I'm talking about homicide. There isn't a lot of leeway with homicide. It isn't like a lot of the other offences. When somebody kills somebody, it's going to be a homicide charge.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
That's understood completely.
I hope my colleagues will permit me one short question.
Ms. Basnicki and Ms. Beazley, in the event this committee decides that hybridization in some form is a good thing, not a bad thing, and decides to leave in the hybridization provisions, am I correct in reflecting that your testimony is saying that, even if some elements are hybridized, there are certain offences, for different reasons, whether moral, philosophical or because the crimes are so heinous in terms of perception, that we should be looking carefully at the list and carving those out, such as terrorism-related offences or, as in your case, offences against religious officials?
Is that what you're basically recommending? I think it is.
Director, Public Policy, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
I combed through the very lengthy bill. There probably are a number of offences that are perfectly fine to hybridize, but there are some where it is just inappropriate, and it sends a very, very negative message.
As an Individual
I would like to remind the committee that the decisions they make are not just for Canada, they're a statement in the global community. There are some crimes such as terrorism that have to be recognized. It goes beyond our borders.
I'd like to set an example in Canada and be proud of my country.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I understand completely.
Thank you so much to the members of the panel.
Thank you very much. I appreciated your testimony greatly.
I really appreciate it, Ms. Wiebe. Thank you for joining us by video conference.
The meeting is adjourned.