Justice committee  Well, if it is contemplated that their role is to be more meaningful than just flipping a coin and deciding yes or no on consecutive sentences, yes.

Justice committee  No. In effect, it just gives them one more question to answer.

Justice committee  I'm in favour of judicial discretion and in fact firmly believe that it's not only consistent with the charter but is also consistent, ultimately, with Canadian practice, nationally and internationally. I would trust the judges to do it, but they're going to be reluctant to enga

Justice committee  That's fair enough.

Justice committee  As I said at the outset, I applaud the existence of that discretion, and I think it's key in keeping this piece of legislation within constitutional boundaries.

Justice committee  I would absolutely applaud that sort of amendment because it does restore and reflect faith in the judiciary to do exactly what it is that we swear them in to do on a daily basis. They have the expertise to do that. They would have the evidence before them to do that. That measur

Justice committee  I think if you could find out, the judiciary's view would likely be that they have an expertise that's developed and that's based on an evidentiary foundation. The hallmark, if you will, of Canadian sentencing up until recent years has been the judicious exercise of discretion in

Justice committee  I agree that lawyers and civilians are two different things. I also agree entirely that it is probably one of the areas most ripe for public legal education. It is one of the most pressing and most common misconceptions, both in the media and publicly, at large. Most people will

Justice committee  I agree that it is a common perception. My only response is that it is more a function of our needing to educate the public, get the correct statistics, analyze the issue factually, and then act, if there is that need.

Justice committee  I have nothing but great and deep sympathy for their views on something like that. It is obvious that they have been victimized not only by the initial crime but by the process as it unfolds over the years--there's no doubt. Ultimately, I don't think there's anything that can be

Justice committee  I accept that. Taking that argument to the logical extension or conclusion, you then deny parole to anyone and give everyone life in prison without the hope of ever getting out, and you remove their name from any public display so that no one is ever revictimized by the person.

Justice committee  The minute you increase penalties, you will see not only increased litigation surrounding the penalty but prolonged litigation. Someone who has a 50-year sentence ahead of them has nothing to lose by trying to fight for everything they can.

Justice committee  Sure. And what happens when one of the two murder convictions is appealed and the sentence is set aside? There needs to be a resentencing hearing because your parole ineligibility period will need to be reset in view of the fact that the person is no longer found guilty. You have

Justice committee  The discount only arises if you know when into their sentences they were paroled. Was it after 25, 35, 45, or 50 years? If you know the number when, effectively, they were paroled and how long they had served in jail, that will demonstrate whether there was in fact a discount.

Justice committee  That's interesting. The second-degree murder sentencing provisions right now allow a judge to put to the jury a similar question asking for a recommendation on the number of years for parole ineligibility. While it's not contained in the code, in practice most judges will allow c