I want to move a subamendment, Madam Chair. It has been distributed to the committee members. It would replace the word “shall” with “may”.
We heard from Justin Mausz, an advanced care paramedic. He completed his Ph.D. and he works as a clinician‑scientist and professor in the department of family and community medicine at the University of Toronto. Mr. Mausz seems qualified to address the issues concerning Bill C‑321.
When he came to speak, I asked him the following question:
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.
Mr. Mausz responded: “Yes, absolutely.” I won't read you his entire response, but he finished with the following statement: “I always think context is important in decisions that must be approached with seriousness.”
It's a good idea, in probably 95% of cases, to consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the assaulted individual was a health care professional. However, there may be circumstances where this doesn't apply. Mr. Mausz gave the example of a person who, under the influence of adrenaline during an accident, I believe, reacted by saying something like “I'm going to kill you.” Everyone knew that this person wasn't violent, that his words weren't sincere and that the reaction was simply the result of the circumstances and adrenaline. Everyone recognized this, including the paramedic. In these types of cases, the judge hearing the evidence must have some leeway to determine whether this constitutes an aggravating circumstance. If the judge finds otherwise, the judge shouldn't feel obligated to consider it an aggravating circumstance in the sentencing process.
In keeping with the evidence heard and in the interest of fairness, I think that we should replace “shall” with “may”.