Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I think the best way is to remove it and leave the Human Rights Commission in the position of dealing with traditional issues of discrimination, for which it was originally created.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  On the Criminal Code, as far as we're concerned, if the key section were narrowed to deal with the prevention of violence, particularly in situations of imminent peril, it would be much closer to the position that we would advocate.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  No. Our concern would be section 319, dealing with hatred. That's the key problem.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  I would replace it or amend it with something that was focused on the incitement of violence in situations of imminent peril.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  No. The difficulty with that is that is so wide it could include situations where the person is provoking an attack upon himself. You could have a situation that we generally refer to as the “heckler's veto”. You don't want to penalize the speaker because of the violence of his audience.

Subcommittee on International Human Rights committee  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The problem is exacerbated in my case because I tend to speak slowly. I think that in view of the polemics that have preceded these hearings, it would be appropriate for me to begin by indicating areas of agreement that my organization has with the defenders of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Justice committee  We at least have to give you full marks for an ingenious, if not a valid, argument.

Justice committee  It's okay with us if they go back to the drawing board.

Justice committee  I can envision a lengthy correspondence being precipitated.

Justice committee  I think the answer to that has to be sure it would, because you would know—assuming that potential criminals would know about it, and of course I have great doubts about whether they know any of this, but assuming they did—that the presumptive minimum signals to the judge that he or she is to apply that minimum unless there are special circumstances.

Justice committee  Mr. Kramp, there have been scientific surveys in which people were polled and asked, and they found that the overwhelming majority of the public did not know. The fact that you may have some anecdotal evidence here or there that somebody knew doesn't reply to the comprehensive surveys that were done that showed that hardly any of them knew.

Justice committee  Your comments glossed over something rather important when you talked about recidivism and what that would attract under Bill C-10. You somehow managed to exclude the police officer I was talking about from the sweep of Bill C-10. I'm suggesting to you that if that officer were convicted today--first offence, good record, committed while he's chasing a fleeing burglar--he would have to go away under Bill C-10 for at least five years.

Justice committee  I'm responding to something you said, and that's why I wondered if I could. You and Mr. Kramp have made much of the fact that we haven't explicitly used the word “victims” in our presentation.

Justice committee  I would suggest to you that the inference you draw from that is quite misconceived. If we did not explicitly use the word “victims” when we talked about the social science evidence that the mandatory minimums do not contribute to public safety, I would suggest to you that this necessarily implies victims.

Justice committee  I would gladly eliminate them. In the case of such offences as murder, if I had my druthers, it would be subject to a presumptive minimum. That is, it would draw a life sentence, unless a court found a sufficiently compelling set of circumstances to rule otherwise.