Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Would you like the constitutionality addressed first?

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I'll do my best. We've spoken of section 7 and the right to silence, of the principles of justice with regard to life, liberty, and the security of person, and of whether the reverse onus would satisfy those charter considerations. But what about paragraph 11(i), the individual

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  As to tying the hands of the crown and saying that under certain criteria you must, putting constitutional considerations as to division of powers aside, absent political motivation, what possible reason could there be to dictate to a crown attorney, who knows his or her case, th

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I haven't had the opportunity to fully peruse them, as they are afresh, and I think my answer would really run afoul of the time constraints.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I appreciate it, because it tells me where you want to go. The short answer is yes, but you've actually alluded to something else. You've talked about being subject to a fair-minded judge looking at the assessment report. The assessment report, in that context, almost becomes i

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  With regard to the legislation, regardless of whether the presumption kicks in, there still has to be, in essence, documentation as signed by the attorney general of the province particularizing that you are sought to be declared a dangerous offender for the following reason. So

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Johnson wasn't incongruous with the legislation. What the court said in Johnson is we are going to hold off making a declaration of dangerousness because we don't want to impose the indeterminate sentence. What this legislation does to a degree is clarify that, because it allows

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  The short answer is yes.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Generally speaking, if you start from the perspective that reverse onuses prima facie fly in the face of the charter, they can often be shown, and have been shown in other charter challenges on other sections, to be necessary in the circumstances: what they are trying to accompli

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Not off the top of my head. I think some have come out on other provisions, but nothing touching on this, since it's so relatively new.

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I will simply say, in answer to your question, yes, it would be an additional ground of unconstitutionality. As far as your other question, if I can just say it briefly so you have time left, when you get to the stage where a finding has been made of dangerousness, you then move

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Thank you. First, regarding the offences, if you look at the primary designated offences, I don't think it's necessarily a situation of removing those that are offered there. It's a question of looking at the practical aspects of what offences are there and the effect they might

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Thank you. There are a couple of glaring difficulties in the legislation, as I see it right now, as well as concerns that we have on behalf of our organization. To echo Mr. Rady's comments, including those on resources, the constitutionality of the reversing of the onus is anoth