Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
Justice committee What it does, though, is it adds this new concept of a high-risk offender with the difficulty of interpretation that I've just pointed out. I think that's the key difference. This is not creating a new category of offenders, this is not codifying the Supreme Court of Canada's—
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee That's true, and in my view, “brutal nature as to indicate a risk of grave physical or psychological harm” does not make it less ambiguous. That's my point. I think you could remove the word “brutal”. You could raise the level. I think that proposed paragraph 672.64(1)(b) is pr
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee Well, somebody would say that it is not necessary, that your legislation is not necessary, because the case law has already said that public safety is paramount.
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee Yes. I meant to say that it's outside the framework of therapeutic.... You're correct.
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee It's already the case.
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee I think the point I was trying to make was about the way in which it forces the court to make an assessment on the basis of probabilities and so on. We will disagree on whether proposed paragraph 672.64(1)(a) is the appropriate test. In my view, proposed paragraph (b) is the one
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee You are correct that the section goes on and is a full assessment—hopefully; otherwise it would be completely unconstitutional. I think we have to say that obviously, it has to be a full assessment that does not disregard completely the therapeutic aspect or the concern for the
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee The reality is that because of this removal of the least onerous burden, which we should always want for morality reasons, we should always want because it's cheaper for the system, because it's the right thing to do.... The way to better protect society is by ensuring that you a
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee As I've indicated, there are some provisions in it that are vulnerable. The use of the word “brutal” is not one that commands sufficient definitional certitude for it to pass an arbitrariness test. That's the first part. The second part is there's some difficulty in reconciling
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee Great.
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee I think everybody wants to have a system that has the right balance and reflects the need for public safety. Everybody is in agreement with this. Our position is that the bill responds to some of the victim's needs, but not all of them. It gives information rights, but it does no
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee We have to ask ourselves if we are not, in a way, changing the therapeutic approach that is necessary to treat mental illness and confusing it with a more punitive approach where punishment is the main thrust and the aspect of therapy, in the sense of managing the mental illness,
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee In a way, although it does aim to respond to the informational needs of victims, it does not respond to other needs, for example, financial help and support. It certainly addresses very little the need for prevention and the lack of access to mental services in Canada, a problem
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee One of the issues here is to avoid any changes in the message that will raise the danger of continuing to have misinformation about mental disorders. Particularly, the act does use the words “mental disorder” without specification, and I think that has contributed to the criticis
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers
Justice committee Glad you agree. Ha, ha!
June 10th, 2013Committee meeting
Nathalie Des Rosiers