Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a simple question for the witnesses.
I talked about this with Mr. Doherty earlier. Bill C‑321 would require courts hearing these cases to consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the person assaulted was a paramedic or doctor, say.
The wording in the bill is “shall consider”, and that makes me wonder about some things. There are times when it's important to really consider the context. The example I gave earlier was of a doctor trying to deliver medical care to a patient at the hospital. The person is in pain and screams that they're going to rip the doctor's hands off if the doctor keeps touching them. That's not what you would call a real threat, necessarily.
I appreciate that you're not a legal expert, but as a paramedic, you have experience dealing with people in emergencies. You or your co‑workers have probably had to appear in court after being assaulted or threatened. That makes you somewhat of an expert, in my eyes.
Do you think the bill would still be helpful if it said that the court “may consider as an aggravating circumstance”, instead of “shall consider”?
That way, the judge would have the discretion to determine whether it should be considered as an aggravating circumstance in a particular case.