Justice committee  That is an astute point that I didn't raise. Thank you for raising it. I think your question and comment reveal another aspect of this, and that is the definition and the elements of aggravated assault are already very broad, and they're broader than those proposed under this new

Justice committee  That would bring the bills into better harmony and eliminate some of the problems. The other problems and costs that I've talked about with respect to plea bargaining and complexity, and things of that nature, of course wouldn't be cured necessarily by those amendments. It's not

Justice committee  Your point is well taken. That is definitely a way to explain those differences. One could definitely be in agreement with your proposition. The short answer is yes. You could very well be correct on that, and that could explain the differences. The explanation of those differen

Justice committee  No, I don't think it's necessarily the burden of proof that leads to plea bargaining. That has to do with larger issues of overcharging, of what would be acceptable for a plea, similar to the mandatory minimum section. I would strongly say that lowering the burden of proof would

Justice committee  One of the issues is the incoherence and conflict inherent in that with respect to the state torture in the Criminal Code. The other issue is that when an individual is charged with these offences, there are already mechanisms, if the offence is so egregious, that would result in

Justice committee  If you leave aside the concerns of mine that wouldn't be addressed through amendments, if this bill is going to pass, I think there needs to be agreement between the definitions of “torture” in one section and the definitions of “torture” in the other section. Much like calling

Justice committee  It's nice to put a face to the name.

Justice committee  I've answered the question previously about calling crimes what they are and the utility and costs of that. I personally am well aware of the impact of crimes on individuals. I see it on a daily basis. As part of my job, as part of my role in the justice system of ensuring fairne

Justice committee  I hope you don't take my concern with the bill, both in its drafting and potential problems in its application, as a comment on the spirit of the bill as intended, the conduct that it's intended to capture, or the seriousness of this type of action. It's not any of those things.

Justice committee  Yes, and thank you for the question, because it reminds me of what I didn't answer on your last question, which I think dovetails perfectly into that. It goes back to my point about legislating generally and applying that specifically. I'm going to use an example. Again, I'm go

Justice committee  Yes, and I hope that I clarified and conceded somewhat that that is a lesser concern. It's a bit of a double-edged sword. If it's not going to be used that often, if it's not going to be employed that often, the costs might not necessarily be—

Justice committee  Yes, and that point is well taken. If I may, I will take this opportunity to make one final point about plea bargaining and the pressure that an accused might face, guilty or not, to accept a plea to a lesser charge. That is injurious in and of itself. It's injurious not only be

Justice committee  I think language is important. The interesting issue—and of course, this is larger than the scope of my testimony here—when you're dealing with the language and the change from “rape” to “sexual assault”, is there's a tremendous lag time between that change and the conversation w

Justice committee  That's a valid point. I think the criminal law doesn't accomplish that already. The example you gave of sexual assault, all offences, really, covers a broad range of behaviours. In the case of sexual assault, it's from an unwanted touch in public to a full-on egregious, serious,

Justice committee  I think there is an important educational aspect that can be accomplished, but not necessarily through the Criminal Code. It's much like someone who's going to be engaging in this type of behaviour probably isn't going to be deterred by this extra section. If I were a betting man