Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The data not currently being collected resides in police and crown files, so that's the nature of the work it would involve. They have acknowledged that there is a need for this information. They have a project assessing the viability of doing that, but it involves gathering data

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  That's correct.

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  That would have been in, I believe, 2002-03.

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  To add one point with respect to those two statistics, it's not possible to provide an interface between them. In other words, what is known is the number of offences with respect to firearms or other weapons and how many prohibition orders are enforced at a particular time, but

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I missed the beginning part of your question. What support exists across the country?

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  We had an FPT working group studying firearms issues in the development stage of this bill, so it was largely discussed with provincial attorneys and with general representatives across the country. They communicated with their local police agencies to assess their views. Those d

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  I'm sorry, are we talking about a prohibition order meaning that they have a conviction for which they were ordered by the court not to possess?

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  If the prohibition order has expired, then it's no longer in force. The individual would not be subject to a prohibition order--

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  That's right. If that were the scenario--

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  The scope of certain offences is very broad. This is true of manslaughter and or criminal negligence causing death. You may have noticed that these two offences were not included in Bill C-10, for example. The same model was more or less followed in terms of selecting offences wi

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Indeed, Morales and Pearson dealt with paragraph (d) of section 11, which is the presumption of innocence; paragraph (e) of section 11, which is the right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause; and section 7. With respect to Morales, that was indeed the case—and sec

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Thank you. One point, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Murphy made toward the end of his question was the comment with respect to assurances that this bill is free of charter challenges. It needs to be emphasized that no one can provide those assurances. “Charter challenges” simply means tha

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  “Successful” charter challenges; I guess that's the word that was not included there. I just wanted to clarify that charter challenges will indeed occur, probably....

Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) committee  Yes. In terms of some of the dissents in the Supreme Court rulings, specifically in Pearson—I believe Madam Justice McLaughlin was one of the dissenting justices in that decision, and she highlighted that the section should have failed because it didn't distinguish between small

Justice committee  Just for clarification, the consequential amendment to the other act was to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act at clause 29, which was not carried.