Justice committee  We had some of the same concerns you have expressed with some of the language used in some of the factors, and we set those out on page 4 of our submission. You've touched upon one of them, proposed paragraph 34(2)(e), regarding the size, age, and gender of the parties. We were just concerned that language was problematic and kind of leaned in a particular direction.

Justice committee  Yes, I think that's clear.

Justice committee  I thank the member for his support of our organization's support of the bill. I can say I agree with you in that it seems clear from the drafter's intent that the list is really not meant to be a closed, exhaustive list of factors that judges can consider. But the quite intense consultation that we undertook—we talked with our prosecutors and our practitioners, our defence lawyers, and had anecdotal experience and the experience of our members—told us that when judges are given or faced with a list, there's a natural tendency to go through it and effectively treat it almost as a checklist: Does this apply?

Justice committee  With respect, I disagree. I think what you actually see in the draft of the proposed new section 34 is a real emphasis on the objective standard. In fact, I point to the use of the reasonable person. The reasonable person is, by definition, the objective standard. We have pointed out that in proposed paragraphs 34(1)(a) and 34(1)(c), and, indeed, moving on to proposed subsection 34(2), with its reliance on the concept of proportionality, in proposed paragraph 34(2)(g), there's real emphasis on the reasonable person and on the objective standard.

Justice committee  Well, I can say that we've had discussions around the inclusion of a list in a section like this that is setting out self-defence. Proposed subsection 34(2) sets out a list of various factors that a judge is supposed to use in determining whether the defensive act was reasonable in the circumstances.

Justice committee  Well, this is part of the problem, I suppose, and part of our general concern. The power of citizen's arrest requires a regular Canadian citizen to hopefully have some knowledge of the law, but if they don't, then they're on their own in determining certain things in this provision.

Justice committee  Yes. Mr. Cotler, your question has different applications. When you're talking about individuals involved in the private policing or the private security field and those individuals who make arrests routinely, it may not represent much of a change in terms of potential civil liability or even potentially criminal liability.

Justice committee  Yes, thank you. I think it might have been a lot easier just to come to Ottawa to appear before the committee today. I apologize for not being there in person. I know that we're a bit late because of the delay, so I'll curtail my remarks a little so we can get straight to the questions.

Justice committee  Hello?

Justice committee  Yes, Mr. Chair.

Justice committee  Very briefly, I think my colleague, Professor Jackson, talked about the changes to the CCRA that will have an impact and the changes to the pardon act that would create further roadblocks to reintegration into communities. The simple answer is that many of the restrictive sentencing measures that are being put in place--such as the increased use of mandatory minimum sentences and the restrictions on conditional sentences, which assist offenders to continue doing positive things in life, continue working, and continue having interactions with friends and family while under strict conditions and monitored by the state--assist and enhance public safety.

Justice committee  I do.

Justice committee  It could be read that way, yes.

Justice committee  It will be interpreted by the judges imposing a sentence.

Justice committee  Yes, it could be read that way.