Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
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 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 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 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