Justice committee  My understanding is that the police lay the charge. If it's a second time that you're convicted, then in a sentencing hearing your criminal record goes before the sentencing judge. It will be known to all that it's a second conviction.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  I think I heard it a long time ago, but I don't recall right now.

Justice committee  From your question, I really glean from that two major principles of sentencing: one is denunciation and the other is deterrence. I could not disagree. I certainly would agree that, by particularizing this kind of offence in relation to war memorials, I think it's a message from Parliament that this particular kind of conduct should be especially denounced.

Justice committee  Well, it's difficult. I think that what Ms. Latimer was talking about in terms of a general desire to simplify the Criminal Code is something that I certainly could sympathize with, and we can leave it to the courts to determine whether something is particularly aggravating. At the same time, Parliament does have a right to specify and to send those kinds of messages.

Justice committee  No. I've defended many dozens of mischief charges generally, but I’ve never dealt with one specifically dealing with a war memorial. I spoke of an incident that one of my colleagues had, involving I think something quite similar, which related to the theft of money that had been donated for veterans.

Justice committee  You're talking about importing the model from impaired driving into these mischief provisions. I don't really think it does much to enhance respect for the law. As I said, I think there are some conditions that could be attached to a probation order that would do much more in terms of really instilling that kind of respect in a particular offender.

Justice committee  Thank you. First off, I'd like to thank members of the committee for inviting me again to speak here. It's always a pleasure to take part in this dialogue with members of Parliament on issues of criminal law. I'd ask that you go a little bit easy on me today. I've had about 24 hours to review this legislation.

Justice committee  I don't have an interest in the proliferation of theft. I also share the interest in enforcing law and preventing theft. I'm not sure that you can necessarily tie the comment that there have been fewer thefts to the message that was sent by the court, and whether or not we can take from it that the police have received a message.

Justice committee  Let me just use an example to establish my disagreement. The charter was enacted in 1982. There have been messages being sent by the court, including the Supreme Court, about what the boundaries of police obligations and powers are. I would say that the police in many cases have yet to receive that message.

Justice committee  Yes. I think that should definitely be the case.

Justice committee  Yes, and I should note that none of the changes being proposed would possibly affect that.

Justice committee  That's a very difficult question. I don't think I can answer it, the reason being that this has to do.... The problem with the David Chen case is the use of police discretion and the use of crown discretion. There are very good reasons that police are given a wide latitude to lay charges or not lay charges and why crown attorneys are given wide latitude.

Justice committee  I do, actually. And I do see the language of the legislation as being.... Contrary to the previous remarks, I understand there are other cases as well, but it seems to be directly tailored to Mr. Chen's case.

Justice committee  In other words, should it apply?